Historical Perspectives on Fruit Production- Fruit Tree...
Transcript of Historical Perspectives on Fruit Production- Fruit Tree...
2
Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and
New Insecticidal Chemistries.
Peter Jentsch
Extension Associate
Department of Entomology
Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab
3357 Rt. 9W; PO box 727
Highland, NY 12528
email: [email protected]
Phone 845-691-7151
Mobile: 845-417-7465
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/faculty/jentsch/
3
Historical Perspectives on Fruit Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Chemistries.
by Peter Jentsch
I. Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940
Synthetic Pesticide Development and Use
II. Influences Changing the Pest Management Profile in Apple Production Chemical Residues in Early Insect Management Historical Chemical Regulation
Recent Regulation Developments Changing Pest Management Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 The Science Behind The Methodology Pesticide Revisions – Requirements For New Registrations
III. Resistance of Insect Pests to Insecticides Resistance Pest Management Strategies
IV. Reduced Risk Chemistries: New Modes of Action and the Insecticide Treadmill
Fermentation Microbial Products Bt’s, Abamectins, Spinosads
Juvenile Hormone Analogs Formamidines, Juvenile Hormone Analogs And Mimics
Insect Growth Regulators Azadirachtin, Thiadiazine
Neonicotinyls Major Reduced Risk Materials:
Carboxamides, Carboxylic Acid Esters, Granulosis Viruses, Diphenyloxazolines, Insecticidal Soaps, Benzoyl Urea Growth Regulators, Tetronic Acids, Oxadiazenes , Particle Films, Phenoxypyrazoles, Pyridazinones, Spinosads, Tetrazines ,
Organotins, Quinolines.
4
I Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production
Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940
The apple has a rather ominous origin. Its inception is framed in the biblical text
regarding the genesis of mankind. The backdrop appears to be the turbulent setting of
what many scholars believe to be present day Iraq. The original eating qualities of the
fruit, although touted by a serpent of dubious character, were stated that ‘…when you
eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’1. The
account has it that the visual allure of the apple and the desire for wisdom prevailed.
Defiance resulting from a clearly stated Devine consequence for eating the forbidden
fruit was expulsion from a life of bliss. The occupants of Eden were subsequently thrust
into a life of agricultural turmoil, "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful
toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your
food…”2 Any apple grower will attest to this state of agriculture as their present
condition.
Historically the apple has evolved from simply a seasonal food gathered by the
migratory nomadics, no more than 1 to 2 inches in diameter, acid and astringent in
flavor3, to a place of prominence in agricultural civilizations, often greatly sought after by
those designing and developing cultivated gardens of the wealthy elite and emperors.
These ancient gardens were considered places of retreat, a personal paradise. In the
year 401 B.C. the Greek historian and essayist, Xenophon became so inspired by
walled fruit gardens throughout the Persian empire that he establishes one on his own
estate in Greece. He then proceeds to coin a new Greek word from the Persian
pairidaeza, or walled garden, later becoming the Latin paradisus, and finally the English
paradise4. Boasting an abundance of cultivated fruit, these paradise gardens were
portrayed as places of sexual and romantic connotations. The apple not only tasted
heavenly and considered good for digestion, but often the apple was presented to a
intimate guest as a cunning transitional aphrodisiac for the pleasures that followed,
powerful reasons why apples came as dessert at the end of the meal.
The tree and its fruit is classified with the groupings of plants known to produce
fleshy fruit that contain its seed in a ‘bony’ parchment-like carpel. It is classified in the
5
order, Rosales in the family, Rosaceae, the subfamilies Maloideae (five capsules) and
its genus being Malus, retaining credit to Linnaeus5. The wild ancestor to Malus
domestica, our present day apple, is probably Malus sieversii, still found wild in the
mountains of central Asia in southern Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan6. The
region extends from the Caspian to the Black Sea. Obtaining ancestral genotype
specimens has been the work of pioneering pomologists seeking to both preserve the
genetic linage as well as in obtaining genetic traits for transfer into future commercial
varieties.
In attempts to produce a better apple, both the tree and fruit have undergone
numerous transformations. Through natural cross-pollination and artificial manipulation
by selective breeding and genetic modification, the plethora of varieties now exceeds
7500 varieties presently available to apple producers7. As pomologists have sought for
the re-creation of the perfect apple, none so far has brought mankind enlightenment or
the return to Eden he so desires. It appears that the closer we come to the development
of the “perfect apple”, the more difficult the production and management process seems
to be. Yet the benefits of health and extending ones life from the eating of the apple are
just now coming to the surface. The old adage of ‘an apple a day’ has just recently been
confirmed, as they have been found to help in protecting apple lovers against brain-cell
damage that triggers Alzheimer's, Parkinsonism disease8. The phenolic acids and
flavanoids that protect the apple against disease have been discovered to provide anti-
oxidant and anti-cancer benefits through reduction of cell-damaging free radicals and
inhibition of the production of reactive chemicals that could damage normal cells.
In regards to apple production, not much has changed since the ousting from
Eden for we continue, through painful toil and the sweat of our brow, to eat of our food
all the days of our lives. Apple pest management is the epitome of intensive agricultural,
observed in the chemical dependency of our management programs. Today’s apple
varieties are subject to perennial onslaught from a multitude of insect, disease, wildlife,
weed and weather conditions, reducing a potentially profitable crop to a few worthless,
worm riddled, scab encrusted fruit. Without intensive multidisciplinary management and
rigorous chemical intervention, the apple as we know it, displayed on farm market and
retailers shelf, would not exist.
6
If we consider the history of apple production beginning in the old world we find
that it is limited primarily to cultivation practices and physical control methods. Budding
and grafting practices, which allow for desirable fruiting traits to be propagated, have
been know to exist for thousands of years. One example of early cultural practices
comes from Chinese writings ("The Precious Book of Enrichment", part I, chapt. 49). It
appears that Feng Li, living around 5000 B.C., gave up a prominent position as a
Chinese diplomat, when he becomes consumed by grafting peaches, almonds,
persimmons, pears and apples as a commercial venture10. Theophrastos, considered
the father of Botany, describes in 323 B.C. 6 varieties of apples and discusses why
budding, grafting, and general tree care are required for optimum production11, In his
writings, Inquiry into plants (De historia plantarum), he confirms the importance of
budding and grafting as he describes seed propagation to almost always produce trees
of inferior quality fruit. The emphasis on fruit production up to the 17th century primarily
followed cultural practices to obtain fruit quality with sparse emphasis on pest
management.
There is however evidence that supports the use of chemical pest management
practices up to this period. In a historical summary of ‘Insect Pest Management’ (CAB
International, Wallingford, 1991), Dr. D. R. Dent summarizes an overview of historical
insect pest management12. He states that animal oils on rice are believed to be one of
the early forms of insecticides used in China followed by the use of inorganic mineral
insecticides by the Sumerians, first recorded in 2500 BC, in which sulfur compounds
were employed to control insects and mites. Botanical insecticides were being used for
seed treatments and as fungicides in China as early as 1200 BC. The Chinese were
also considered to have been the first to use mercury and arsenical compounds to
control body lice during that same period. A Chinese alchemist in the year 400 AD, Ko
Hung, had written recommendations for root applications of white arsenic when
transplanting rice to protect against insect pests. Also in China in the year 300 AD came
the first recorded use of biological controls through the use of predatory ants
(Oecophylla smaragdina) to control caterpillar and beetle pests in citrus orchards.
Another example of early biological control comes from Arabia during 1000-1300 A.D.
where date growers seasonally transported cultures of predatory ants from nearby
mountains to oases to control phytophagous ants which attack date palm. It is the first
7
known example of movement by man of natural enemies for purposes of biological
control.
The use of chemical derivatives as both poisons and medicinal drugs flourished
during the Roman Empire, from 331 BC to the end of the 1st century. The history of
poisons and poisoning goes back about 5,000 years to the earliest written records of the
human race. Menes, first of the Pharaohs, approximately 3,000 years BC studied and
cultivated poisonous and medicinal plants – an interest retained by the Egyptian court 13.
Under the Roman Empire during the 1st century AD Dioscorides wrote his famous De
Materia Medica, which outdated existing literature in classifying remedies and drugs
from the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms. This work, which dealt about 1,000
drugs, became the standard text for centuries to come. Information on poisons was also
available in the writings of Scribonius Largus ( AD 1-50), Pliny the Elder ( AD 23-79)
and the poet Nicander (2nd century AD )14. Poisons, relative to insecticides developed in
the 17th century, that were found in the literature dating back to the Roman Empire were
arsenic, lead, mercury, copper silicate, from mineral sources, Black hellebore (Veratrum
nigrum), and White hellebore (Veratrum album) from plant sources, Romans using
hellebore to kill insects and rodents15.
Arsenic has been known since antiquity in the form of its sulphides. Aristotle
(384-322 BC) makes reference to sandarach and his student Theophrastus of Eresos
(370-286 BC) named it arhenicum16. The oxide known as White Arsenic is mentioned by
the Greek alchemist Olympiodorus of Thebes (5th century AD), obtained it by roasting
Arsenic Sulphide. Pliny, in his Historia Naturalis said: "Sandarach is found in Gold and
Silver mines. The redder it is, the more powerful its odour, the better its quality...
Arsenicum is composed of the same matter as sandarach; the best in quality has the
same color as that of the best gold, and that which is pale in color resembling sandarach
is of inferior quality." It was not until 1649 that Johann Schröder (1600-1664) clearly
reported the preparation of metallic Arsenic by reducing White Arsenic with charcoal.
Thirty-four years later, Nicolas Lemery (1645-1715) observed that metallic Arsenic was
produced by heating White Arsenic with soap and potash. This and all other metals were
considered compounds until Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794) established a new definition
for elements17.
8
It was during the early 1600s that it was discovered that many plants used for
medicinal purposes had insecticidal properties. Some of these included: nicotine from
tobacco plants, caffeine from tea and coffee, quinine from cinchona bark, morphine from
the opium poppy, cocaine from cocoa leaves, ricinine from castor oil bean, strychnine
from strychnos plants, coniine from hemlock18. By 1690 “Black Leaf 40” (containing 40%
nicotine sulphate) was being marketed as a poison containing nicotine, which was used
to control pear tree pests19. The use of arsenic also appeared as an insecticide in the
form of ant bait formulations used in Europe by 169920.
The settling of the Americas and the challenges faced by farmers, many of which
had small fruit plantings, were numerous. The pest complex in the new world was vastly
different than that of Europe, and the diversity of pest infestations lead many to contrive
a vast array of remedies, published as articles in papers throughout the colonies.
Regarding a single pest, the plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst), most all of
these remedial suggestions had no impact on the damage caused to plantings of
apricot, nectarines, peach, cherry, apple, or sloe (the blackthorn or North Amarican
plum). These included treatments of fumigation using sulphur, wood ash during bloom,
sulphur and powder fired from a gun into the trees in successive mornings, burning pans
of leather on pans of charcoal, whale-oil soap, sulphur, lime and tobacco sprays21. One
of the earliest accounts in the newly establishing American colonies of apple infestation
and plausible treatment for plum curculio was found in a letter from Peter Collinson to
John Bartram dated February 3, 1736 (considered the "father of American Botany") 22.
The remedy of using straw smoke and or subsequent water applications of tincture of
tobacco leaves were recommended.
With the escalation of insect descriptions after Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) and
biological discoveries during the Renaissance, more refined methods of pest
management and agricultural production methods were practiced. In 1763 Linnaeus
wrote an essay on how orchards could be freed from caterpillars, suggesting use of
mechanical and biological control methods in orchard pest management23. During the
early 1800’s crop protection became more extensive and international trade promoted
the discovery of the botanical insecticides such as pyrethrum (Dalmatian powder) and
derris, in particular derivatives from the roots of the Derris plant (found and imported
from tropical regions) cultivated for the manufacturing of the insecticide Rotenone. The
9
production of pyrethrum beginning in 1870 by a Mr. Milco (a native of Dalmatia) near
Stockton California trade named ‘Buharh’ from the Pyrethrum cinerarioefoliumI24.
During the late 18th early 19th century came the appearance of the first books and
papers devoted entirely to pest control, covering cultural control, biological control,
varietal control, physical and chemical control of agricultural crops. With greater
understanding of botany, plants with insecticidal uses were recommended as
insecticides. The dried and powdered root of Veratrum californicum or hellebore was
used as an insecticide and a parasiticide, effective against caterpillars and
recommended against the imported cabbage worm in 186125. With the advent of mono-
culture came wide spread disease and insect outbreaks, causing devastation in crop
losses and human famine as was observed in the Potato blight (Phytophthora infestans)
outbreak in Ireland, England and Belgium in 1840 and the introduction of the Grape
Phylloxera (Viteus vitifoliae) from the Americas from 1848 to 1878, that nearly put an
end to the French wine industry26. The release of the natural enemy Tyroglyphus
phylloxerae to France from North America in 1873 began to provide adequate levels of
control to grape production. The multi-disciplinary approach of biological and chemical
control for insect and disease came in the form of the introduction of Paris Green, a
copper acetoarsenite pigment in 1867, used for control of the Colorado potato beetle27,
and the Bordeaux mixture, used on French grapes for mildew control in 188328. Along
with the use of resistant rootstalks and grafting that allowed the French wine industry to
flourish. In 1880 the first barrel pump spraying machine was released for commercial
applications of these newly developed products, followed by dusting machines in 1893,
steam and gas powered sprayers in 1884 and 1885 respectively, followed by the
Cyclone spray nozzle for insecticide spraying in 1887, all of them used in various forms
for applications in fruit pest management29.
By the late 1800’s there was a growing arsenal of insecticides used for
commercial fruit production, the principal insecticide being Paris Green, first
recommended in 1869 for the control of the Colorado potato beetle30. In the 1882 report
by Lintner to the N.Y. State Legislature, he lists the discovery and uses of valuable
insecticides. Recommended in this report were Paris Green (arsenic and copper) and
London Purple (calcium arsenite), a byproduct of analine dyes (consisting of rose
10
aniline, arsenic acid, lime, iron oxide, water), for control of codling moth (apple-worm
Carpocapsa pomonella (L.)) and spring canker worm (Anisopteryx vernata), Pyrethrum
(Persian or Dalmatian Insect Powder) for aphid and caterpillars by dusting, Hellebore for
sawfly control, oils (kerosene, coal oil, and paraffine oil) for scale and wooly apple louse
(aphid), Bisulfide of Carbon for peach tree borer (aegeria exitiosa Say), Carbolic Acid,
Soluble Phenyle (0.79% carbolic acid, 80-90% tar oil, and potash soap) for apple aphid,
Coal tar and sulphur burning to deposit soot on the trees for plum curculio control, and
GasLime (waste product of gas light manufacturing) containing ‘sulphuretted hydrogen’.
Most of these materials came as individual compounds, either mixed by the
farmer or formulated by a ‘druggist’. Paris Green for example contained 58% arsenic, in
the form of arsenious acid, known as arseniate of copper. To this insecticide were added
diluents such as flour, plaster of Paris, finely sifted wood ashes, air-slacked lime and
road dust. The use of flour to Paris Green, in the ratio of one part Paris Green and
twelve to thirty parts flour, depending on both the insect and the crop, would allow for a
dry mixture applied as a insecticidal dust, to vegetable crops. The dilution of Paris Green
and plaster of Paris was used with success when applied at 1 pound Paris Green to 150
to 200 pounds of plaster of Paris for control of early nymphs of the Colorado potato
beetle, ‘made in the early morning when dew on the foliage allowed for greater
adherence of the mixture to the plants’. A ‘wet mixture’ was obtained by applying a half-
pound of Paris Green with 40 gallons of water for spraying fruit trees, resulting in faster
application, more equable distribution, ‘obviating’ the danger of inhalation31. These
applications were recommended for fruit insect control using a hand pump called the
“Hydronette” or “Aqujet”, capable of sending the liquid formulation forty to fifty feet to the
tops of fruit trees. Combined with a flattened nozzle with many small holes for broad
spray distribution, this technique for application of the early arsenicals was effective for
fruit tree pest management.
The introduction of newly developed chemicals and their uses were not without
opposition, prompting the scientific community to speak out concerning the safety of
insecticides such as London purple and Paris green. Recommendations on proper
chemical use of pesticides were put forth in Lintners report, containing brief precautions
regarding labeling and storage of these poisons, application methods, days to harvest,
exposure to farm animals, potential foliar and fruit phytotoxicity, concentrations of
11
mixtures, and crop rotation32. Regarding the toxicity of residues on crops, U.S.D.A.
chemist Wm. McMurtrie conducted early studies on soil contamination, through the use
of insecticidal Paris green, in 1875. At the time these studies showed no evidence of soil
residue phytotoxicity or potato plant tissue absorption of arsenic from the soil when the
material was applied at one to two pounds per acre, which at the time was a standard
dosage33.
Beginning in the 1890's, lead arsenate became the standard stomach insecticide
used on apple for the control of plum curculio and apple maggot34. And in general, lead
arsenate was the most extensively used of all the arsenical insecticides. It was first
prepared as an insecticide in 1892 for use against gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) in
Massachusetts, after its introduction from France into Medford, MA in 1869. Since Paris
green was found to be very phytotoxic at the rates required for gypsy moth control, the
use of lead arsenate gained popularity due to its lower solubility rates. Lead arsenate
applied in foliar sprays also adhered well to the surfaces of plants, allowing for long
insecticidal residual. Lead arsenate was initially prepared by farmers by reacting soluble
lead salts with sodium arsenate, but pastes and powders which were sold commercially
became widely used. Grasselli Chemical Company, later becoming a part of E.I. Dupont,
started manufacturing lead arsenate insecticides beginning in 190735. Formulations
became more refined over time and two principal forms evolved in the form of basic lead
arsenate [Pb5OH(AsO4)3] for use in certain areas in California, and acid lead arsenate
[PbHAsO4] for all other locations36.
The search for substitutes for lead arsenate began in earnest when it was
discovered in 1919 that contemporary practices for washing produce were failing to
adequately remove residues. Numerous investigations were conducted to this end. One
such study conducted in 1923 by the USDA tested 42 readily available organic
compounds when applied as contact insecticides37. The chemicals were applied to the
black aphis, Aphis rumicis L., to determine baseline levels of toxicity. As they inhabit
nasturtium, which are relatively sensitive to chemical applications, the study allowed for
of both efficacy and phytotoxicity evaluations to be made. Of these materials tested,
nicotine and nicotine sulfate were found to be most toxic to the aphid, confirming a
report by Hodgkiss and Fulton in 1913 on the recommended effectiveness of nicotine
(Black Leaf 40) on Rosy and Wolly apple aphid on apple38.
12
By 1926 the USDA began conducting tests on methods for removing lead-
arsenate spray residues from apples and pears to meet export tolerances. And in 1933
the Federal Food and Drug Administration fixed a limit to lead, whereby creating a
‘desirable’ zero tolerance to insecticides containing lead39. Unfortunately, the majority of
the tested alternative materials were found to provide less effective insect control, owing
to greater solubility in the insect digestive tract, additional insecticidal action by lead, and
greater adhesion by lead arsenate. Other materials tested, such as calcium arsenate,
were gaining popularity by 1923, owing to both its effectiveness in managing the boll
weevil and reduced residual on food40. Yet the formulations of calcium arsenate were
maintained to be more toxic to plants due to the formation of water soluble arsenate
through the release of carbon dioxide and water41. No adequate substitutes were found
until 1947, when the synthetic organic insecticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
was introduced42. Continuing use of lead arsenate was documented in New York
through 1965 and Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia during the mid-1960s.
Insecticidal uses of lead arsenate on food in the USA were officially banned on 1 August
1988 with all registrations for insecticidal use having lapsed before that date43.
By 1929, prior to the introduction of synthetic pesticides, the production of
agricultural chemicals was a multi-million dollar a year business. The U.S. industry
manufactured insecticides were valued at $23,505,000. Of this amount, household
insecticides were valued at $13,350,000. Hugh amounts of insecticides were produced
including calcium arsenate at 31,314,000 pounds worth $1,733,000; arsenate of lead
29,903,000 pounds worth $3,304,000; carbon bisulfide $2,860,000; carbon tetrachloride
$1,728,000; and various arsenical compounds valued at $500,00044.
Synthetic Pesticide Development and Use in Apple Production The 1930’s was an era that brought about the development and use of organic
synthesized compounds for insect pest management. Although synthesis of compounds
had occurred prior to this time, use of these materials as insecticides in fruit was minimal
in the United States. An example of this progression began with the synthesis of the
chlorinated hydrocarbon HCH, by Michael Faraday in 1825, not rediscovered until
194045. DDT had a similar history. The German chemistry student by the name of
Othmer Zeidler, was credited for this work for his thesis in 1874. Yet, Paul Müller, in
Switzerland, did not discover the insecticidal property of DDT until 193946. In 1892
13
Antinonnin (derived from the German name for gypsy moth), the first synthetic chemical
crop protection product was produced in Barmen (now Wuppertal) Germany, by
Friedrich Bayer and a master dyer named Johann Friedrich Weskott under the name
"Friedr. Bayer et comp, eventually to become The Bayer Group."47. Antinonnin, or
Dinitrocresol, 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol (DNOC) was made available in the United States by
July of 1893 for gypsy moth control and general pest management (rats, insects, wood
preservatives)48.
The synthesis of compounds as insecticides in mass production appears to have
begun in 1929 with Alkyl phthalates patented as insect repellents, and n-Butyl carbitol
thiocyanate being produced commercially as a synthetic contact insecticide49. This was
followed by work conducted in Leverkusen, Germany by Dr. Gerhard Schrader of the I.
G. Farbenindustrie laboratory, in search for nicotine insecticide replacements. He first
discovered the phosphoric acid ester Tabun (ethyl dimethylphosphoramidocyanidate) on
23 December 1936. He found Tabun was extremely potent against insects at 5 ppm
killing all the leaf lice he used in his initial experiment50. This information (chemical
toxicant data), was decreed by the Nazi government to be exclusively government
property, eventually leading the government to large-scale manufacture and use of
Tabun (and Sarin) by Germany for genocidal purposes.
Chemical research was well under way in the U.S. by the early 1930’s, giving rise
to the development of the early synthetic organic compounds for insecticidal use51. A
study conducted in 1937 at the University of Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station,
under guidance and support of a E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company fellowship,
evaluated some 1000 compounds, making up 800 stomach poisons, in five different
chemical groups52. Representatives of the groups, phosphoniums, coordinated
chromium salts, thiazines, thiuram sulfides, and thiocarbamates were comprised of
synthesized compounds found to approach the toxicity of lead arsenate, the more toxic
selections were studied on codling moth larva on apple.
Many synthesized organic insecticides were introduced and employed in tree fruit
pest management leading up to the widespread use of DDT. Phenothiazine (also known
as dibenzothiazine, thiodiphenylamine) was introduced as one of the early members of
the new synthetic age of pesticides in 193553. It was used for codling moth control on
tree fruits and widely used as worming agents in veterinary medicine effective against a
14
wide range of parasitic insects in animals. Dinitro derivatives of phenol and cresol came
into use prior to WWII as dormant fruit tree sprays as insecticides and miticides,
especially for rosy apple aphid pre-bloom54. They were first introduced in the form of 4,6-
Dinitro-o-cresol (DNOC) or commonly called DN’s, followed by their analogs such as
dicyclohexylamine salts which were more water soluble thus easier to use55. It is
registered in a number of countries for use as an acaricide, larvicide and ovicide to
control the dormant forms of many insects in orchards. It is applied during the winter on
pome and stone fruits and grapes ("winterwash"). These were extremely toxic
compounds, very lipophillic and easily absorbed through the skin. Aliphatic, alicyclic, and
aromatic esters of thiocyanic acid soon followed, primarily in the form of thiocyanates
that came into use prior to the 1940’s as insecticides. They tended to produce injury to
plants and soon fell out of favor as a fruit tree management tool.
The use of chlorinated hydrocarbons in the form of carbon tetrachloride and p-
dichlorobenzine had been well under way by 1940. The first introduction of DDT into the
United States was made in August of 1942 when the dye firm of J.F. Geigy shipped from
Switzerland to New York two formulations of wettable powder and dust to be used
experimentally by research entomologists56. Production of DDT in the Unites States the
following year and made available to the Armed Forces for disease control efforts.
Civilian use of DDT began immediately after the war. And by 1950 fruit tree
management had incorporated more than 14 different chemicals into their pest
management arsenal, applying 11 or more sprays throughout the course of the growing
season. The number of chemical applications doubled from 1920 recommendations of
5-6 applications per season through the use of only recommended 6 materials57.
By 1952 fruit tree spray programs had incorporated DDT as the replacement for
lead arsenate for the control of codling moth (CM), red banded leaf roller (RBLR), and
apple maggot (AM), the chlorinated hydrocarbon analogs of DDT known as DDD
(dichloro-diphenyl-dichloro-ethane) and TDE (tetrachloro-diphenyl-ethane) for RBLR and
AM, Chlordane (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,8-Octachloro-4,7-methano-3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydroindane)
for plum curculio (PC), Methoxychlor (80% of 1,1,1,-trichloro-2-2-bis(p-methoxyphenyl)
ethane) for PC, Aldrin (95% 1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a - hexahydro-1,4,
5,8-dimethanonaphtha-lene) and Dieldrin (85% 1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-6,7-epoxy-
1,4,4a,5,8,8a-oc-tahydro-1,4, 5,8-dimethanonaphtha-lene) for PC. Nicotine Sulfate, in
15
the 40% formulation, was still used for aphids and leafhoppers. Organophosphates in
use primarily as miticides were Parathion (0,0-diethyl-0p-nitrophenyl thiophosphate),
TEPP (Tetraethyl pyrophosphate), ‘EPN 300’ (Ethyl p-nitrophenylthionobenzine
phosphonate), ‘Dimite’ (Di-p- (chlorophenyl) – methylcarbinol), ‘DN-111’ (Dinitro-o-
chlorohexylphenol, dicyclohexylamine salt), and ‘Aramite’ (β-chloroethyl-β (p-
tertbutylphenox) - ∝ - methyl ethyl sulphite), as was 60 and 80 sec oil and highly refined
‘white summer oil’ with low unsulfonatable residue, also used as stickers58.
II. Influences Changing the Pest Management Profile in Apple Production
By 2004 there no less than 35 agrichemical companies that manufactured and or
distributed 181 crop protectants in the form of 91 active ingredients comprising
acaricides, bactericides, fungicides, herbicides and insecticides used on tree fruits in the
New York State.(Table 1). Of that number 38% (36) are insecticides and or acaracides
manufactured by 16 different companies. These insecticides and or acaracides exist as
52 different trade names, 28% of them having the same active ingredient. Of the 119
chemical companies producing chemicals worldwide, the 7 leading companies
producing 63% of the insecticides and acaracides on tree fruits are DuPont, Gowan,
Bayer, Dow AgroScience, Drexel, Syngenta, and Valent BioSciences (Table 2 and 2a).
Both the number of crop protectant materials available for use in tree fruits and the
number of companies producing these materials has diminished over the past 40 years.
Chemicals have been lost through product registration cancellations (or banning), and
company reductions primarily through consolidation.
The pioneers in the manufacture of chemicals for agricultural purposes were most
often involved in the manufacture of products other than pesticides. The manufacture of
colored dye, London Purple and Paris Green for instance, were later found to be useful
in controlling insects. The fungicidal Bordeaux mixture originated from the manufactured
purpose of repelling would be pilferers from the roadside borders of French vineyards,
the green residue of the copper oxide believed to be poisonous by travelers passing the
ripening grapes.
Many of the agrichemical industries of the latter 20th century were conceived during
the dawn of chemistry of the 18th century. Merck is one of the few surviving names in the
manufacture of agrichemicals that had its beginnings as an apothecary shop in
16
Darmstadt Germany in 1668. In 1758 Geigy was founded, the company eventually
responsible for the introduction of DDT. The manufacturing of gunpowder by Eleuthère
Irénée du Pont (E.I.) (1771-1834), an immigrant of revolutionary France in 1799, was the
start of the E.I. DuPont Chemical Company in 180259. In 1863, dye makers Friedrich
Bayer and Johann Friedrich Weskott established what has become the present day
Bayer Group, discovered their synthetic dye aniline to have insecticidal properties. In
1876 Sandoz was founded and shortly there after, in 1884, Ciba was founded. The first
record of consolidation of companies involved in the manufacture of agrichemicals was
the purchase of Grasselli Chemical Company, by E.I. Dupont. Grasselli Chemical being
the first company to manufacture lead arsenate insecticides60.
Chemical Residues in Early Insect Management
During the early use of newly developed agrichemicals it soon became evident that
their use in pest management were directly related to an assortment of secondary
problems and risks. The early agricultural ills that arose from the use of various
treatments such as oils used to control San Jose scale61 and metals, such as copper on
foliage (Paris Green), became apparent and advisory literature regarding phytotoxicity to
foliage and tree mortality was made available. Additional concerns regarding chemicals
in foods surfaced from food adulteration in processing, beginning with the addition of
copper and zinc salts to enhance color and preserve freshness62.
During the late 1800’s the concerns of poisonous residue on fruit was only alluded to,
and reports rejecting toxic residue concerns were published by credible sources63. With
the insecticidal residue tolerance used by the British government for food imports
containg arsenicals becoming established in 1903, and the manufacturing and
introduction of lead arsenate powder beginning in 1908, residue on export fruit became
greater cause for concern. Compounding the residue issue was the adoption of findings
in 1928 of fixing nicotine with tannic acid in combination with lead arsenate and oil to
increase the efficacy of codling moth management, allowing the ‘triple spray’ to adhere
to the fruit longer, making removal of the ‘tile’ residue from fruit more difficult64.
The disruption of natural predation through the use of insecticides such as lead
arsenate, nicotine sulfate and Bordeaux, derris, phenothiazine and sulfur had been
studied by 193865 and the detrimental effect of arsenicals on honeybees during
pollination and foraging in fruit trees had been confirmed as early as 189466.
17
Historical Chemical Regulation With the advent of mechanized sprayers and reliable chemicals for fruit insect
pest management, came the repetitive ‘calendar sprays’ and yearly cyclic applications of
oils of kerosene, coal oil, paraffine, tar or whale oil, sulfur, pyrethrum, hellebore, bisulfide
of carbon, carbolic acid, coal tar, various arsenicals, nicotine, and heavy metals,
beginning in early spring and ending just prior to harvest. Predictable pest management
allowed for fruit growers to produce larger crops of higher quality fruit year after year,
generating surplus for wholesale in unprecedented volume.
But with greater ease in production came chemical quality, food quality, and
chemical residue concerns. This prompted the government to pass the Federal Food
and Drug Act of 1906 (Pure Food Law) that required fresh, canned, or frozen food that is
shipped through interstate commerce be of ‘pure and wholesome’ quality. Under this law
pesticide residues were not considered but were disputed over during the enactment
process.
The regulation of pesticides by the federal government began in 1910 with the
passage of the Federal Insecticide Act by Congress. This act was passed in response to
concerns from the United States Department of Agriculture and farm groups regarding
the sale of imitation or substandard pesticide products. Thus, the first federal pesticide
legislation was to ensure the quality of pesticide chemicals purchased by consumers.
Specifically, the act set standards for the manufacture of Paris green, lead arsenate,
insecticides, and fungicides, and also provided for inspections, seizure of adulterated or
misbranded products, and prosecution of violators67.
With more and more fruit and vegetables harboring residues, Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act of 1938 authorized the recently established Food and Drug
Administration to set tolerances for chemicals in food, primarily for the arsenicals lead
arsenate and Paris green. The tolerances for chemicals in food were deemed
‘desirable’, for which there was no retribution. The law also required the addition of
coloring for certain pesticides to prevent their use as flour.
After WWII came a wave of synthetic pesticides in the form of insecticides,
fungicides, herbicides, rodenticides, vying to replace the older more toxic arsenical and
heavy metal chemical arsenal. To regulate this deluge of technology the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1947 was enacted to extended coverage
18
of previous laws to include herbicides and rodenticides. With the passage of this
legislation, pesticide products previously grandfathered into the arsenal would be
required to be registered with the U. S. Department of Agriculture, which established
labeling standards for all pesticides. With greater concern for food safety came the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1954, known as the Miller Amendment, which
created specific tolerances required for all pesticides. Unlike the Act of 1938, raw
agricultural commodities were now condemned if they contained pesticide residues
above FDA tolerance levels.
On the heels of the Miller Amendment came the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act 1958 Food Additives Amendment, which covers food additives and
pertains to chemicals remaining on food after processing. This amendment included the
“Delaney Clause” which established a zero tolerance for food additives found to cause
cancer. The concept of zero tolerance was acceptable given the ability to detect
residues in 1958.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Amendments of
1959 and 1964 added nematicides, plant regulators, defoliants and desiccants to the
definition of “pesticide” or “economic poison”. It established federal registration numbers
and signal words on labels and allowed the Secretary of Agriculture the power to
suspend hazardous pesticide registrations. With the publication of Rachel Carson's
‘Silent Spring’ in 1962, that sowed the seeds of the environmental movement, the
federal government established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and passed
the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972. This legislation enacted that
pesticides must register with the newly created EPA as “general” or “restricted” use
pesticides. This is the first legislation directed at both protecting public health and the
environment. During that year DDT was banned from use in the U.S.
The FIFRA Amendments of 1975, 1978, 1980 and 1981 brought about
improvements in the registration process and allowed for considerations of agricultural
benefits of pesticides during the regulatory decision making process. Conditional
registrations of pesticides were allowed to reduce the registration backlog. Pesticide Re-
registration was initiated by the EPA in 1975 to bring the older pesticide chemicals up to
current registration standards. A “Special Review” process was established to further
review those pesticides that posed a risk or concern. FIFRA was amended in 1988 to
19
impose a 9-year schedule for the completion of re-registration along with the
establishment of substantial registration fees. The Worker Protection Standard for
Agricultural Pesticides was instituted and revised in 1992. Product labels were modified
to restrict entry of workers into pesticide-treated fields, specification of protective
clothing, and notification of workers of fields that are treated with pesticides was
initiated. Employers must provide safety training, sites for decontamination, and
emergency treatment for employees in pesticide handling and exposure risk positions.
The specific departments of the federal government act together to establish and
enforce pesticide related laws. The EPA is responsible for establishing tolerances for
pesticide residues on raw and processed food, the FDA enforces tolerances on most
domestic and imported food, and the USDA enforces tolerances on meat, poultry and
egg.
Recent Regulation Developments Changing Tree Fruit Pest Management The Food Additives Amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in
1958 containing the Delaney Clause required a zero tolerance for potential cancer-
causing chemicals in processed food. Regarding raw foods, the EPA had a “negligible
risk” approach to pesticide residues (cancer risk of one-in-one-million). Yet advances in
technology now allows for detection of extremely small residue levels. The two different
standards for both raw and processed food created a regulatory problem for EPA. To
resolve the disparity between raw and processed foods new legislation was required.
Much of the incentive behind changing present federal laws was a view called
“toxics populism”, the belief that current toxic laws are not tough enough. California's
Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, established
a new incentive structure for toxics regulation in an attempt to end the regulatory
paralysis affecting conventional approaches to hazard identification, risk assessment,
and enforcement68. Proposition 65 was the paving stone to shift the burden of proof in
the regulatory process from government to industry. Use of chemicals known to cause
cancer or reproductive toxicity is no longer considered "innocent" until proven "guilty" of
harming public health by governmental agencies.
Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 The adoption of this new regulation philosophy by the federal government was made
law on August 3, 1996, when the President signed the Food Quality Protection Act
20
(FQPA) of 1996 as part of the Farm Bill. This law amended the two major laws that
governed the use of pesticides: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as
related to food safety, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) regarding pesticide registration and use 69. The provisions of the law revolve
around health based safety standards for all foods, eliminating prior multiple standards
and taking into account non-foods and non-occupational sources of exposure centering
on mechanisms of toxicity. Special considerations for infants and children requiring child
safe tolerances, including children’s ‘special sensitivity’ to pesticides, given their size,
developmental requirements, etc. The law states that EPA should give priority
consideration to reassessment of tolerances that appear to pose the greatest threat to
human health. And that EPA must reevaluate pesticides in order of their perceived
greatest risk, which is why the organophosphate pesticides were evaluated first.
As part of the FQPA implementation process, EPA and USDA formed the Tolerance
Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC), an advisory panel of 52 key persons
representing diverse agricultural interests. Regarding tolerances and exemptions for
pesticide chemical residues, most of the law, pertaining to residues on tree fruit crops,
originates in title 21, chapter 9, subchapter IV, § 346a70. Under Section 408(b)(2)(A), the
standard for establishing a tolerance is based on whether the tolerance is “safe”. Safety
is defined as “a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to
the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other
exposure for which there is reliable information.” A significant requirement of the new
law is that EPA apply up to a ten fold safety factory for pesticides that have uncertain
toxicity data . Under Section 408(b), Aggregate exposure includes dietary exposures
under all tolerances for the pesticide, as well as exposure from all other non-
occupational sources.
Therefore, in making a safety assessment, EPA considered dietary exposure data,
including exposure through drinking water and also any existing reliable exposure data
from non-food uses, such as inhalation and dermal exposure contributions from
residential use, lawn and garden use, etc... to determine aggregate exposure. Safety
regarding dietary risk is considered by the EPA to be the amount of chemical ingested
divided by the reference dose (a safe dosage based on toxicological data & uncertainty
factors) multiplied by 100. Since the chemical ingested or exposure is based on
21
estimated quantity of chemical in food and quantity of food eaten, the exposure is
considered the residue multiplied by the consumption amount considered to be safe71.
Organophosphates were the first group of agricultural chemicals to be evaluated
under the new FQPA guidelines. This class of insecticides is used on approximately
75% of fruit, vegetable and grain crops produced in the U.S72. The measure of
determining the specific amount of chemistry an individual will be exposed to over the
course of their lives, through food and non-food sources, gave rise to the term
cummulative ‘risk cup’. In a letter addressed to all pesticide registrants in October of
2001, regarding organophosphate assessment, the EPA outlined the direction of
mitigation measures, based on the ‘risk cup’ methodology. In this letter they state that
the “FQPA directs the EPA to consider available information on the basis of cumulative
risk from substances sharing a common mechanism of toxicity, such as the toxicity
expressed by the organophosphates through a common biochemical interaction with the
cholinesterase enzyme. The Agency (EPA) will evaluate the cumulative risk posed by
the entire organophosphate class of chemicals after completing the risk assessments for
the individual organophosphates. The Agency is working towards completion of a
methodology to assess cumulative risk and the individual risk assessments for each
organophosphate are likely to be necessary elements of any cumulative assessment.
The Agency has decided to move forward with individual assessments and to identify
mitigation measures necessary to address those human health and environmental risks
associated with the current uses of azinphos-methyl. The Agency will issue the final
tolerance reassessment decision for azinphosmethyl once the cumulative assessment
for all of the organophosphates is complete73.”
The benefits that pesticides offer, taken into account in prior legislation, no longer will
be given an open ended provision when new tolerances are set, but will be limited by
risks (yearly and lifetime i.e. aggregate exposures) and thresholds such as carcinogenic
factors, reproductive factors, and health based standards for children. The new
legislation will require that all presently registered pesticides meet the requirements of
the new health based safety standards. Included in re-evaluation are testing
requirements for endocrine disruptors, requiring chemical manufacturers provide data on
their products, including data on potential endocrine effects.
22
The law, seeing the need for replacement of crop protective materials, initiates
expeditious review of safer pesticides to help them reach the market sooner and replace
older and potentially more risky chemicals. It also establishes minor use programs within
EPA and USDA to promote coordination on minor use regulations and policy, and
provides for a revolving grant fund to support development of data necessary to register
minor use pesticides. It encourages minor use registrations through extensions for
submitting pesticide residue data, extensions for exclusive use of data, flexibility to
waive certain data requirements, and requiring EPA to expedite review of minor use
applications. These incentives are coupled with safeguards to protect the environment.
The establishment of new requirements to expedite the review and registration of anti-
microbial pesticides will also be under the FQPA umbrella, ending regulatory overlap in
jurisdiction over liquid chemical sterilants. Under new FQPA guidelines a national
uniformity of tolerances is established, whereby the states may not set tolerance levels
that differ from national levels unless the state petitions EPA for an exception, based on
state-specific situations.
In an effort to make the public aware of pesticide treated foods they are purchasing,
a ‘Right to Know’ feature of the law is required through the distribution of brochures in
grocery stores on the health effects of pesticides, how to avoid risks, and which foods
have tolerances for pesticide residues based on benefits considerations. The specifically
recognizes a state's right to require warnings or labeling of food that has been treated
with pesticides.
FQPA reauthorizes and increases (from $14M to $16M per year) user fees
necessary to complete the review of older pesticides to guarantee they meet the new
standards, requiring tolerances to be reassessed as part of the re-registration program.
It will require the EPA to review periodically the pesticide registrations over a 15-year
cycle, verifying that all pesticides meet updated safety standards. The law provides for
enhanced enforcement of pesticide residue standards by allowing the FDA to impose
civil penalties for tolerance violations.
The Science Behind The Methodology In order to determine the complex exposure and risk assessments for pesticides
to the general public, the EPA uses state-of-the-art software developed by the
International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). The software designed to conduct cumulative
23
and aggregate risk evaluations to make the assessments required under the 1996 Food
Quality Protection Act74. CARES was originally developed under the auspices of
CropLife America (CLA) (formerly the American Crop Protection Association), which
conceived the project, provided funding, and oversaw the program’s evolution. Scientific
and technical contributions to the program came from a broad team of experts,
including: scientists from CLA’s member companies and staff; consultants from
infoscientific.com, Novigen Sciences (now Exponent), Sielken & Associates, and
Summit Research; and scientists from EPA and USDA.
Using the CARES software allows EPA risk assessors to estimate exposure to a
single pesticide occurring via ingestion, dermal, and inhalation routes from food, drinking
water, and residential sources (i.e., aggregate exposure). The software can also
estimate concurrent exposure to multiple pesticides having the same mechanism of
toxicity (i.e., cumulative exposure). Risk can be estimated for the U.S. population (a
100,000 sample size) or for a user-specified subset population, for a range of durations
(acute, short-term, intermediate-term and chronic).
Pesticide Revisions – Requirements For New Registrations Initially there was considerable concern regarding the vast changes in fruit tree
pest management materials expected through the employment of FQPA. During the
preliminary stages of evaluations regarding FQPA’s impact on agriculture, the EPA has
identified the top 20 foods consumed by non-nursing infants less than one year old that
will have the 10X factor applied. They include apples, peaches, pears, carrots, corn,
potatoes, fresh green beans, tomatoes and peas. Given the “cumulative risk” of
aggregate exposure possibilities with specific classes of chemistry, most people in the
fruit industry were especially concerned about the potential loss of organophosphates.
Jim Cranney, USApple's director of industry services said regarding this issue "It is not a
foregone conclusion that we would necessarily lose all these pesticides and uses.
Certainly some will go, but not on the level of all OP's and all carbamates. But that will
require a change in the current state of affairs with EPA on how they're viewing and
implementing the law75." These are critical insecticides, and especially for the apple and
blueberry industries. Apple growers use them to control plum curculio, leafrollers,
codling moths and late-season apple maggots while blueberry growers use them for fruit
24
flies late in the season. For both industries, alternative pest control measures are either
non-existent, not economical or not thoroughly researched”.
The process for pesticide revisions applied by the EPA to fulfill the
implementation of FQPA involved a special effort to maintain open public ‘dockets’ on
the first of the classes of pesticides, the organophosphates, and to engage the public in
the re-registration and tolerance reassessment processes. This open process included
the guidance developed by the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC),
a large multi-stakeholder advisory body that advised the Agency on implementing the
new provisions of FQPA76. During the evaluation of the first class of which was based on
the EPA review of all relevant information and public comments through 5 phases of
evaluation, the EPA identified interim risk mitigation measures, primarily focused on
dietary risks, and recognized additional mitigation that the EPA deemed necessary to
confront the human health and environmental risks associated with the use of
azinphosmethyl.
The EPA Petition process for the registration of new materials requires the
company to provide toxicology data to meet FQPA standards, pursuant to section 408(d)
of the FFDCA (21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180) by establishing a
tolerance for residues77. These include residue data from 6 diverse areas, which include
residue chemistry, toxicological profiles, aggregate exposures, cumulative effects, safety
determinations, and international tolerances.
Regarding residue chemistry, residues found on or in plants from plant
metabolism in the form of the actual active ingredient or metabolites are determined and
established using analytical method to detect metabolitic moieties. The methods include
the utilization of oxidation, derivatization, and analysis by capillary gas chromatography
with a mass-selective (MS) detection. Confirmatory methods specific for active
ingredient and metabolites, utilizing high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)
with Electrospray MS/Msdetection may also be conducted. The amount (magnitude) of
residue data is collected from samples taken using residue harvesting protocols.
Applications on tree fruit are made as foliar sprays at narrow intervals in field trials
throughout different EPA regions. Typically fruit samples are collected at assumed label
pre-harvest intervals (PHI) and residues evaluated for pomace, juice and juice
concentrate.
25
Regarding toxicology profiles, acute toxicity data is taken from a variety of test
organisms, primarily mammals, in feeding, dermal, inhalation, In vitro, and In-vivo
studies, under chronic and sub-chronic conditions. Data generated is presented as
NOELs (No Observed Effect Levels), NOAELs (No Observed Adverse Effect Levels),
and LOAELs (Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels), on the populations, evaluated
as a range of mg/kg. Organisms responding to a dose at the LOAELs level show slight
changes, often as body weight reduction, delays in maturation, function etc.
Reproduction, carcinogenicity, gene mutation assays, chromosomal aberration studies,
animal metabolism, metabolite toxicology, endocrine disruption are all included in the
residue analysis.
Dietary exposure regarding food and drinking water as well as non-dietary
exposures, such as landscape, urban and industrial uses, are evaluated and exposure
models are then assigned (such as the CARES software or Food Commodity Intake
Database (DEEM-FCIDTM), which incorporates food consumption data reported by
respondents in the USDA 1994–1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food
Intake by Individuals (CSFII), and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each
commodity). Aspects of residue parameters include margin of exposures (MOE),
toxicological level of concern (LOC) and uncertainty factors (UF) which models generate
during the extrapolation of data, assigned to predictive human subjects. Models
separate the use of a broad U.S. population base or a population base specific to the
more susceptible infant and children grouping.
III. Resistance of Insects to Pest Management The drive behind the development of newer compounds is both broad and
comprehensive. As in the past the challenge to synthesize chemistries with lower
mammalian toxicity was ever present. Yet concerns for the development of
environmentally friendly materials and the replacement of older materials due to high
degrees of mammalian toxicity (human acute and chronic toxicity) and escalading
insecticide resistance, was changing the course of pesticide development and its use.
With the ever-increasing loss of effective control measures from insecticide resistance
new materials offer, at least in the short term, the possibility of continued pest
management and minimal crop loss.
26
Resistance may be defined as a reduction in the sensitivity of a population, which is
reflected in repeated failure of a product to achieve the expected level of control when
used according to the label recommendations for that pest species78. True resistance
would not be influenced by problems of product storage, application and unusual
climatic or environmental conditions. Insecticide resistance is also viewed as
"Accelerated Evolution", in which a portion of a population that responds to intensive
selection pressure possess genes that confer resistance. Resistance is in general
considered pre-adaptive as it is the result of random mutations in which a small number
of individuals have traits allowing their survival of what is typically a lethal dose of
insecticide. The insecticide itself does not produce a genetic change, the individual
posses the trait.
Numerous forms of resistance can develop to crop protection products and fall into
four categories. Metabolic resistance in which resistant insects naturally detoxify or
destroy toxins faster than susceptible insects and can quickly rid their bodies of the toxic
molecules. Metabolic functions involved in detoxification include oxidation, reduction,
hydrolysis, and conjugation. A second form is altered target-site resistance in which the
site where the toxin typically binds in the insect is genetically modified to decrease the
product's effects. Penetration resistance will occur when resistant insects absorb toxins
more slowly than susceptible insects. Behavioural resistance occurs when resistant
insects detect danger and avoid the toxin.
Other more dynamic forms of resistance have been observed once resistance
populations began to develop. The cross resistance of an insect to one pesticide that
generates resistance to other compounds typically involves an altered target site specific
for a certain class of insecticides, or mode of action, as is observed in insects resistant
to both DDT and pyrethroids. Resistance resulting from an increase in metabolic
detoxification and confer resistance to other insecticide classes if each chemistry
contains a functional group susceptible to the same detoxification mechanism. Multiple
resistance, a higher level of pesticide resistance, is a population resistant to different
compounds due to the coexistence of different resistance mechanisms, resulting from
selection pressure of an insect by multiple classes of insecticides.
The first case of resistance developed by insects to insecticide was discovered in
California red scale to hydrogen cyanide and of San Jose scale to lime sulphur in
27
190879. Resistance to insecticides was documented in 1914 by A.L. Melander in the
Journal of Economic Entomology80. He described scale insects, still alive, under a "crust
of dried spray" of an inorganic insecticide. Between 1908 and 1945, only 13 cases of
resistance to pesticides were recorded81. Of most importance observed in tree fruits was
the resistance of scale to hydrogen cyanide, the resistance of codling moth, peach tree
borer to arsenicals. Resistance was also observed of a variety of insects to tartar
emetic, cryolite, selenium and rotenone during that period82. Shortly after the 1940
patent of DDT by Mueller of Geigy Corp., Switzerland, housefly resistance to DDT was
documented in Denmark in 194683. By 1955, synthetic pesticides controlled 90% of the
agricultural pest control market, and yet by 1960 it was observed that 137 species of
insects had developed DDT-resistance (54 species), deldrin-resistance, ie resistance to
the cyclodine group of chlorinated hydrocarbons (74 species), and OP-resistance (28
species). By 1984 resistance was reported in 447 insects and mites, 100 plant
pathogens, 28 weed species, 2 nematodes and 5 mammals. With every new insecticide
introduction cyclodienes, carbamates, formamidines, organophosphates, pyrethroids,
Bacillus thuringiensis, cases of resistance surfaced 2 to 20 years later.
Long before the rumblings of FQPA, the research divisions of agrichemical
companies were continuing their search into new pesticide chemistries. The three major
classes of chemistries dominating the 3 decades between 1940-1970 were the
organochlorines (chlorinated hydrocarbons including DDT and its analogs, the
cyclodienes and benzene hexachloride and its isomers), carbamates, and
organophosphates. The broad development of pesticides was expanded within these
classes during this era. Pyrethroids were first synthesized as esters as early as 1948
(Allethrin) but the synthesis and manufacturing of pyrethroids for fruit tree pest
management began in earnest in the late 1970’s continuing to the present day.
Pyrethroids formed a forth class of insecticides with similar modes of action as DDT,
also acquiring the insect resistance inherent in its synonymous target site.
Due primarily to environmental concerns, a movement for reduction in the volume
of pesticides was initiated through the development of land grant university pest
management programs, beginning in the 1970s. This led to the development of
methodologies using the integration of pest management techniques (IPM). These
methods included the establishment of thresholds for tree fruit insect pests based on
28
scouting and sampling models, promoting pesticide application only after populations
had reached economic damage levels.
The integration of in-depth pest biology, precise timing of highly susceptible life
stages, and the use of the lowest pesticide rates based on the density of foliage (tree
row volume in tree fruit management84) led to considerable pesticide reductions by the
early 1980’s. This reduction, is at least in part, is also credited to the lower dose of
active ingredient needed for control of pests using newer more potent pesticides.
With increasing insecticide resistance to both the older classes and newly
developed pyrethroids, along with registration withdrawals by the EPA of pesticides
deemed environmentally detrimental, growers were finding it more and more difficult to
manage tree fruit pests during the mid-1980’s. Although the pyrethroids were and
continue to be very effective pest management tools, having very low mammalian
toxicity levels (to dermal exposures), fruit tree growers found secondary effects of
phytophagous mite ‘flare ups’ and high levels of toxicity to beneficial insects, especially
the predatory mite Galendromus (=Typhlodromus) pyri (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) and
Neoseiulus (=Amblyseius) fallacis Garman, led them to increase miticide use (as was
experienced with DDT).
Resistance Pest Management Strategies Although diverse classes of chemistries often differ in mode of action, attacking
different target sites, it has been observed that insects having acquired resistance to a
pesticide can acquire a propensity to develop resistance to new compounds within the
modes of resistance development. One such example in tree fruit pest management is
the resistance of the Obliquebanded Leafroller, Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris) to
azinphosmethyl and chlorpyrifos and its cross-resistance to tebufenozide (Confirm 2F)85.
This understanding of resistance patterns may help in the development of pest
management strategies employing new chemistry introductions. Various strategies such
as alternating insecticides may actually result in the development of resistance to
several insecticide chemistries simultaneously86. The key to managing resistance is to
reduce selection pressure caused by the over-use or misuse of a pesticide, as this could
result in the selection of resistant forms of the pest and the consequent evolution of
populations that are resistant to that insecticide or acaricide87.
29
Some principles for managing insecticide resistance on tree fruit have been
developed by IRAC, a global Insecticide Resistance Action Committee. A specialized
group formed by the fruit industry in 1984 to assess the threat of insecticide resistance
and develop solutions. The U.S. member companies include Abbott Laboratories,
AgrEvo, American Cyanamid, BASF Agricultural Products, Bayer Corp., Novartis Crop
Protection, Cotton Incorporated, DowAgroSciences, DuPont, Elf Atochem, FMC Corp.,
Gowan Co., Monsanto, National Cotton Council, Rhone-Poulenc, Rohm & Haas,
Uniroyal Chemical Co., Valent and Zeneca. They have listed both surveys of insects that
have developed resistance to specific insecticides and comprehensive strategy for
managing resistance. These strategies include Identifying the scope of resistance
problems through surveys, the development of methods for detecting and monitoring
resistance, to discover how insecticide resistance occurs, to formulate programs to
counteract the loss of pest susceptibility, to develop and disseminate information on
susceptibility management strategies, and interact with regulatory authorities
responsible for insecticide registration.
IRAC recommends that growers try to minimize insecticide application by
employing basic strategies. These include monitoring orchards through scouting to
determine pest populations and trends, as well as presence of beneficial insects, the
use of insecticides only if target pests are numerous enough to cause economic losses
greater than the cost of the materials plus application and to use an integrated approach
to pest management, combining as many different control mechanisms as possible,
such as protection of beneficial organisms, rotation of insecticide classes, use of
transgenic crop varieties, developing refuge habitat and the use of crop rotation.
A ‘proactive’ approach based on preventative strategies to resistance
management can be developed based on a number of factors (genetic, ecological,
behavioural, and operational). The primary objective in using preventative strategies
only allows for the manipulation of operational factors, those directly determined by the
pesticide application. The growers ability to manage resistance applies to the use of
knowledge of earlier used materials and future use of materials in mode of action
rotation. The use of materials with reduced residual activity or persistence will target
pests in a narrow timeframe, aimed at the most susceptible life stage, reducing low dose
residual that fosters resistant populations. Proper application technique, concentration,
30
and the degree of coverage are also within the grasp of the grower that will allow for
greater efficacy and prolonged pesticide use.
Reduced Risk Chemistries:
New Modes of Action and the Insecticide Treadmill There are 31 different species of insects and mite for which insecticides and
miticides are labeled in NY State for tree fruit (Table 4). Presently there are no less than
444 different active ingredients used as insecticides88, 28 classes of chemistries are
used on U.S. tree fruit production. Of these, 25 classes are recommended for use in
New York State, comprising 39 different active ingredients of insecticide and miticides
(Table 5). There have been numerous reductions in the number of pesticides due to the
evaluation process of re-registration beginning shortly after the establishment of the
EPA. Yet we now have significantly more classes of chemistries with diverse modes of
action to aid in managing both the insect and growing insecticide resistance of specific
tree fruit pests. The use of these new classes in a rotation program will be an important
part of future tree fruit insecticide resistance strategies.
Of the new classes of chemistries, the earliest of these third level or reduced risk
materials developed were the fermentation microbial products and juvenile hormone
analogs. The fermentation microbial products include newly developed products of Bt’s,
the abamectins and spinosads. The and juvenile hormone analogs include insect growth
regulators: Formamidines and Thiadiazines, and the juvenile hormone mimics. These
were followed by a wave of new chemistries in the following classes: neonicotinyls,
carboxamides, carboxylic acid esters, granulosis viruses, diphenyloxazolines,
insecticidal soaps, benzoyl urea growth regulators, tetronic acids, organotins,
oxadiazenes , particle films, phenoxypyrazoles, pheromones for mating disruption,
pyridazinones, tetrazines, and the quinolines.
Fermentation Microbial Products Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), a bacterium with insecticidal qualities, first became
available as a commercial insecticide in France in 1938 and in the 1950s it became
available for commercial use in the United States. Bt primarily came in the form of a
spray to be applied to crops but the non-persistent nature of the insecticide necessitated
repeat applications during the season. The Bt bacterium produces insecticidal proteins
during sporulation undergoing the fermentation process. The bacterium is found as a
31
common soil organism, which was first discovered in Japan in 1901 by Ishawata, and
then in 1911 by Berliner in Germany 89. Numerous strains of Bt exist, each strain
producing its own unique insecticidal crystal protein, or delta-endotoxin. The insecticidal
activity of the toxins from each strain differs, affecting a variety of species from the
families of Coleoptera, Lepidoptera and Diptera. Bt exhibits a toxicity equal with that of
organophosphates. The Bt toxins tend to be specific to insect pests and are relatively
harmless to most beneficial insects, vertebrates including mammals. Bt toxins
biodegrade in the environment and are not as persistent as are most other pesticides.
The mode of action of Bt requires that the insect ingest delta-endotoxin crystals
and spores. Upon entering the digestive tract of the insect they are dissolved in the
insect midgut, liberating the protein toxins of which they are made. These are processed
into fragments that bind to cells of the midgut epithelium. The activated protein forms
pores in the cell membrane causing the cells to rupture. The gut becomes paralyzed and
the insect stops feeding. Gut contents flow into the body cavity causing septicemia.
In tree fruit the prime target for Bt are the lepidopterous complex pests. Due to
resistance to the OP’s, the Oblique banded leafroller has become a very difficult pest to
control in NY State, and use of the Bt formulations for OBLR management has been
very effective. Codling moth and some the pest lepidopteran complex are not as
effectively managed using Bt’s as the larvae tend to feed directly on fruit upon egg
hatch.
Abamectins Agri-Mek (Abamectin) avermectin B1a and B1b, is a natural fermentation
product containing a macrocyclic glycoside. Avermectins belong to the glycoside class
of insecticides. Abamectin is used on apples and pears as an acaricide/insecticide. The
mode of action of Abamectins is most likely a chloride channel agonist in GABA
mediated neurotransmission. It has been shown to have efficacy on European red mite
and pear psylla, and suppresses populations of spotted tentiform leafminer. Abamectin
is toxic to bees and predator mites on contact, but the foliar residue dissipates quickly,
making it essentially non-toxic to these species after a few hours (low bee-poisoning
hazard.
Proclaim (Emamectin Benzoate) (4”R)-4”-deoxy-4” (methylamino)avermectin B1
is a similar chemistry as Agri-Mek and Mesa. The active ingredient in Proclaim is
32
avermectin B1, whereas Agri-Mek is a mixture of avermectin B1a and B1b. Laboratory
bioassays indicated that Proclaim was highly toxic to codling moth neonate larvae90. It
does not appear to be fast acting and larvae are able to enter the fruit and feed for a
short time before dying. Field-aged residue tests showed moderate to high level of
activity through 21 days. Field trials (3 applications at 14 day intervals) also
demonstrated the impact of delayed mortality. Proclaim offered only a moderate
suppression of fruit injury yet a high degree of mortality is achieved of the larvae that
entered the fruit, 95% reduction in live larvae. Laboratory bioassays conducted in
Washington State indicated that Proclaim was extremely toxic to both obliquebanded
and pandemis leafroller larvae (LC50= 0.0006 and 0.0008 ppm, respectively). Yet, field-
aged bioassays reveled that Proclaim residues were short lived in the field with a
decrease in activity observed at 14 days. Proclaim provided excellent control of
pandemis leafroller in field trials. Two applications will probably be needed against high
populations, especially during the summer generation.
Mesa (Milbemectin) (6R,25R)-5-O-demethyl-28-deoxy-6,28-epoxy-25-
ethylmilbemycin B is similar to abamectin with a similar spectrum of activity to mites and
leafminer. Residual activity appears shorter than abamectin and cross-resistance must
be a consideration. Efficacy is greatest on the motile forms of mites. West coast studies
have shown moderate mite activity against both spider mites and pear psylla. But pear
psylla management requires rates above the labeled rates and is not presently
recommended for this pest. Spider mite populations with developing resistance to
abamectin may not be controlled by applications of Mesa. Fortunately, Agri-Mek
resistance in pear orchards is limited in distribution to west coast / Washington state
populations.
Spinosads Success/Entrust (spinosad) are spinosyns produced through a fermentation
process of the microorganism, Actinomycetes spinosa. Spinosyns are active in the
nerve synapse, binding at the nicotine receptor site, having little contact activity and
requiring ingestion prior to expressing toxicity. Spinosad is active against many
important lepidopteran pests and the potential exists to use this product many times
during the growing season. Resistance management must be a concern for maintaining
its use for as long as possible.
33
West coast laboratory bioassays with spinosad indicated it was only moderately
toxic to codling moth (CM)91. Results from initial field trials showed that spinosad would
provide suppression of codling moth, but not commercially acceptable control. Recent
trials have shown that combining spinosad with 1% oil significantly increases the
observed efficacy, utilizing two different modes of action. The oil suppresses egg hatch
and spinosad kills hatching larvae. If re-treatment intervals are frequent enough (10-14
days), spinosad plus oil can provide effective codling moth control. This combination
makes the Entrust formulation of spinosad a potentially valuable tool for organic
growers. However, season long control is probably not an option as the frequency of
application required may be both cost prohibitive and consume the total active ingredient
for the season for only the first generation of CM. Therefore, an organic management
program must still use all tools available to manage CM.
Spinosad is a very effective insecticide for the control of leafrollers, effective as a
single spray in the spring at petal fall to control the overwintering larvae. Spinosad is
effective as two to three summer treatments timed to coincide with the presence of early
stage larvae. Presently there is no change in the susceptibility of the populations that
had been exposed to spinosad for up to three years. Spinosad is also effective against
Lacanobia larvae on the west coast but only against the young larvae (first through third
instar). If the timing is late control will not be as effective. Spinosad has strong efficacy
against leafminer populations by using spinosad at a slightly earlier timing than the
standard 10% tissue feeding timing with improved efficacy by the use of an adjuvant (oil
or organosilicone). Spinosad also has thrips activity.
Spinosad does not appear to have direct effect on predatory mites, but has acute
toxicity to Colpoclypeus florus and Pnigalio flavipes. Field-aged residue trials indicated
the negative effect on these parasitoids was seen for up to 14 days. Juvenile Hormone Analogs Identification of the juvenile hormones by Carrol Williams in 1967 gave rise to a
new generation of insect specific insecticides, which he described as ‘third generation
insecticides’. The development of the synthesized aromatic terpenoid ethers of the
juvenile hormones, were found to be several hundred-fold more active than the natural
hormones.
Insect Growth Regulators: Formamidine
34
Mitac (Amitraz) N’-(2,4-dimethylphenyl)-N-[[(2,4-dimethylphenyl)imino]methyl]-N-
methylmethanimidamide in the formamidine class, was one of the first endocrine-based
insecticides, registered as a technical grade pesticide in 1975. EPA received an
application for registration of an end-use product for apples and pears in 197692.
The formamidines are characterized by a variety of behavioral effects, primarily
mites and ticks. The endocrine-based insecticides involve activity at receptors of the
biogenic amines, such as octopamine receptors. Biogenic amines act as
neuromodulators. They are released by neurons, modulating the reaction of a
transmitter with its receptor. Octopamine, as a neuromodulator in insects, functions
similarly to adrenaline in vertebrates. The effects of formamidines are diverse, having a
repellent action and feeding deterrent. Organisms may suffer increased excitability,
leading to ineffectual probing of the food source or aimless walking, flight, or disrupted
mating patterns.
The generally accepted target site for formamidine insecticides is the octopamine
receptor via agonistic response by sustained and abnormal octopamine-like stimulation.
Another possibility is formamidine interaction with octopamine-sensitive adenylate
cyclase, the enzyme that catalses the production of cyclic AMP and functions as an
intracellular messenger.
In tree fruit Mitac is labeled on pears for the control of pear psylla primarily to
control organophosphate-resistant pear psylla populations. It controls the European red
mite and suppresses codling moth and other lepidopterous pests, but not very effective
against the pear rust mite. It has a relatively low mammalian toxicity, also having a low
bee-poisoning hazard. Slight injury to fruit has been observed where overcast, cool,
moist conditions contribute to poor drying conditions.
The Juvenile Hormone Analogs And Mimics Esteem (Pyriproxyfen) 2-[1-methyl-2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy)ethoxy]pyridine is an
insect growth regulator functioning as a juvenile hormone mimic. In fruit, pyriproxyfen
was registered in the late 1990’s for use in apples and pears. It interferes with the
insect’s normal metamorphosis and kills by retarding its growth and causing sterility. It
also has translaminar properties and displays ovicidal activity. Although leafrollers and
codling moth appear on the label, results from preliminary field trials in NY suggest that
it has greatest efficacy on San Jose scale, pear psylla, leafminers and aphids. Esteem
35
does have activity against the codling moth egg, acting as an ovicide if the moth
deposits its eggs on top of pyriproxyfen residue. Pyriproxyfen for codling moth
management is most accurately applied using DD models for oviposition predictions
(100DD after 1st adult catch, followed by a second application in 14 to 21 days). It can
be a highly selective insecticide providing control without disrupting activities of
biological control agents. It has low toxicity or is non-toxic to most beneficial species,
and has a low bee-poisoning hazard. Esteem has low toxicity to mammals and has a
short worker reentry period (12 hours), but a long pre-harvest period (45 days).
Esteem works well against pear psylla, working similiarly to the carbamate
Comply (fenoxycarb). Esteem has been shown to act on eggs and first through third
instar nymphs, and may have sublethal effects on later instars (‘hardshells’) and adults
as well. The first generation of pear psylla is the best target for Esteem applications, as
the life stage distribution is the most synchronized at this time. The use of delayed
dormant oils, sulfurs, Thiodan, and Surround greatly enhance this synchrony, further
increasing the effectiveness of Esteem. Applications against the first generation can be
made from delayed dormant (targeting early eggs) through 2 weeks post-petal fall
(targeting third instar nymphs). The optimal timing, however, is from clusterbud to petal
fall, when there is peak egg hatch. Results with Esteem have been variable, in some
cases being able to control high populations while in others not controlling low
populations. This may be a result of a predisposition of some orchards to resistance.
Orchards with some degree of developing resistance to fenoxycarb may have reduced
control effectiveness with Esteem. Esteem does not appear to have significant effects
against grape mealybug. Esteem has no known negative impacts on beneficial
arthropods.
Confirm 2F (tebufenozide) manufactured by Dow AgroSciences, petitioned and
received NY State registration in March of 2002. Tebufenozide mimics the action of the
natural insect hormone 20-hydroxyecdysone, the physiological inducer of the molting
and metamorphosis process in insects93. Tebufenozide controls lepidopterous larvae
through the induction of a premature lethal molt, which initiates within hours of ingestion
of treated crop surfaces. Contact activity has also been observed in some insects.
Actual death of the larvae will take several days to occur, although feeding by the
insects generally ceases within 24 hours of ingestion. Tebufenozide is highly active
36
against most lepidopterous larvae while having practically no activity at typical use rates
against other orders of insects. While use of tebufenozide in NY State orchards has
allowed for management of OP resistant obliquebanded leafroller in western parts of the
state, cross resistance became apparent shortly after its introduction. In regions where
resistance is not a concern, the selectivity of tebufenozide allows for the maintenance of
the populations of beneficial and predatory insects.
Intrepid (methoxyfenozide) is very specific to lepidopteran pests, acting to
initiate a premature lethal molt in caterpillars. In some cases methoxyfenozide will not
kill the larva but the subsequent adult will not be able to reproduce. Methoxyfenozide
has little or no contact activity and must be ingested by larvae to have a toxic effect.
Methoxyfenozide has strong ovicidal activity applied topically or if eggs are laid on
residues.
Methoxyfenozide controls codling moth as an ovicide and as a larvicide, highly
toxic to both eggs and larvae in laboratory studies, but not providing the same amount of
crop protection as OP’s under the same use pattern. The reduced efficacy in field
applications relative to OP’s is probably due to reduced residual control. We expect only
about 14 days of activity against susceptible populations. Ovicidal timing of
methoxyfenozide may also provide a new strategy for use. Washington State data
suggests that an ovicide timing of 100 degree days is at least equivalent to the
traditional larvicide timing of 250 degree days94. Methoxyfenozide appears to be a poor
“stand alone” tool for codling moth except where very low pressure is present. It’s best fit
appears as a component of a pheromone-based IPM program where it is integrated with
the use of codling moth mating disruption. Codling moth populations resistant to
organophosphates may also become tolerant or cross resistant to methoxyfenozide due
to OP mediated cross-resistance, as observed with the IGR tebufenozide and OBLR
populations in NY state.
Methoxyfenozide also has good activity against leafrollers. Its use in the petal fall
period could simultaneously control codling moth and leafroller. Methoxyfenozide has
primarily been evaluated at its full field rate against leafrollers, yet the data suggests
reduced rates may also be effective. Methoxyfenozide has demonstrated effectiveness
against leafrollers in the spring from bloom to about 14 days after petal fall. One
application of methoxyfenozide can be effective against low leafroller densities but a
37
second application might prove necessary against high populations. In the spring when
weather forecasts predict warm conditions, 65°F or better for at least 3 days,
applications of methoxyfenozide can be made against active feeding larvae.
Methoxyfenozide has a longer residual activity against leafrollers not as subject to the
heavy weather on efficacy as are Bt products. Methoxyfenozide is also effective against
leafroller larvae in the summer, with optimum timing is when larvae are young. When
applied at 20% egg hatch of leafroller methoxyfenozide provided excellent control,
comparable to spinosad in most tests. Methoxyfenozide has a long residual activity but
has no contact activity, requiring good coverage. Leafroller populations have shown a
highly variability degree of susceptibility to methoxyfenozide, the variability appears
directly related to OP resistance in the same populations. The genetic basis for
resistance to methoxyfenozide exists in some leafroller populations in WA, and rotation
with different modes-of-action materials as part of a resistance management program is
essential.
On the West Coast, methoxyfenozide is very effective against Lacanobia
fruitworm. The best timing against this insect is 80% eggs hatch, prior to the presence of
large larvae, approximately 700DD after first flight. A single application seems adequate
to control this pest and it is very likely that reduced rates will be as effective as the full
field rate. Lacanobia densities were suppressed in orchards that used Intrepid in multiple
applications against codling moth. These timings overlapped with the optimal timing for
Lacanobia providing control of both pests at the same time.
Methoxyfenozide has no known effects on campylomma, leafhoppers, aphids, or
phytophagous or predatory mite. Suppression of leafminer depends on timing, with
greater success being achieved where it has been used in codling moth programs than
in single-application leafminer timings .
Methoxyfenozide has been tested against codling moth in pear, and appears to
work effectively against low to moderate populations. At low densities, Methoxyfenozide
was comparable with Guthion treatments against CM. However, when challenged with
very high codling moth populations, methoxyfenozide treatments sustained significant
damage. Methoxyfenozide is ineffective against pear psylla or grape mealybug.
Methoxyfenozide has no known negative impacts on beneficial arthropods, having a
short REI (4 hours) and PHI (14 days).
38
Insect Growth Regulators: Thiadiazine class Applaud (buprofezin) - 2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-3-(1-methylethyl)-5-
phenyl-4H-1,3,5-thiadiazin-4-one, is a unique chemistry, belonging to the thiadiazine
class of insecticides. Nichino America, Inc has submitted to thet EPA a petition for
registration of buprofezin on December, 2004. Its mode of action is unique in that it can
be used as a contact insecticide, stomach poison, or insect growth regulator as a chitin
synthesis inhibitor. Applaud is likely to only have registration on pear.
Applaud is very active against grape mealybug and pear psylla. Because of its
activity against the same primary pests as the chloronicotinyls, Applaud could be an
excellent rotation candidate in a resistance management program. Field tests of
Applaud conducted in Washington State against pear psylla have been studied at
numerous timings, all with good success95. Applaud has activity comparable to the
neonicotinyls against pear psylla, although the residual activity appears shorter (less
than 2 weeks). It has been shown to be the most active compound available against
grape mealybug, particularly in summer applications. It has no known adverse affects on
beneficial arthropods. Neem (Azadirachtin ) Dimethyl (2aR,3S,4S,4aR,5S,7aS,8S,10R,10aS,10bR)-10-
(acetyloxy)octahydro-3,5-dihydroxy-4-methyl-8-[[(2E)-2-methyl-1-oxo-2-butenyl]oxy]-4-
[(1aR,2S,3aS,6aS,7S,7aS)-3a,6a,7,7a-tetrahydro-6a-hydroxy-7a-methyl-2,7-
methanofuro[2,3-b]oxireno[e]oxepin-1a(2H)-yl]-1H,7H-naphtho[1,8-bc:4,4a-c”]difuran-
5,10a(8H)-dicarboxylate, trade names Aza-Direct (Gowan) 1.2L, Azatin XL Plus (Certis),
Neemix 4.5 (Certis), is derived from the seeds of the neem tree, Azadirachta indica,
which is widely distributed throughout Asia and Africa. Azadirachtin has been shown to
have repellent, antifeedent, or growth regulating insecticidal activity against a large
number of insect species and some mites. It has also been reported to act as a repellent
to nematodes96. Neem extracts have also been used in medicines, soap, toothpaste and
cosmetics. It shows some activity against leafminers, leafhoppers, mealybugs, aphids,
caterpillars, tarnished plant bug and pear psylla, but repeated applications at short
intervals are probably necessary for acceptable control of most pests. Azadirachtin is
relatively short-lived and mammalian toxicity is low (rat oral LD50 >10,000). It can be
used up to and including the day of harvest and reentry is permitted without protective
clothing after the spray has dried. It is relatively nontoxic to beneficial organisms, but
39
toxic to fish, aquatic invertebrates, and bees exposed to direct treatment, although
relatively non-toxic when dried. It is therefore categorized as having a moderate bee
poisoning hazard. Aza-Direct (Gowan) 1.2L, Azatin XL Plus (Certis), Neemix 4.5 (Certis)
Neonicotinyls Beginning in 1979 a new class of chemistries was developed by Kagabu and
coworkers of Nihon Tokushu Noyaku Seizo in Japan (presently Nihon Bayer Agrochem)
based on the heterocyclic nitromethylenes, identified earlier by the Shell development
Co. in California. These neonicotinyls have a ‘novel’ mode of action and have become
the most successful of the new classes, with numerous analogs becoming registered in
fruit tree management. The neonicotinyls are grouped into three chemical categories
based on their chemical structure. The nitroguanidine insecticides contain clothianidin ,
dinotefuran, and thiamethoxam. The nitromethylene insecticides include nitenpyram and
nithiazine and the pyridylmethylamine insecticides include acetamiprid, imidacloprid,
nitenpyram and thiacloprid97.
There are presently 3 of the 5 federally registered neonicotinyls available in NYS
for tree fruit pest management. These include structural analogs of imidacloprid known
as thiocloprid, acetamiprid, chlothianidin and thiamethoxam, which act in the nerve
synapse like nicotine acetylcholine. Their mode of action is not so completely new as
their target site is nearly the same as nicotine, used for decades in tree fruit as “Black
Leaf 40”. They have been found to act as agonists at the insect nicotinic acetylcholine
receptor (nAChR).
The selectivity of the neonicotinyls for insects and not mammals is a strong
characteristic of its success. Neonicotinoids and nicotinoids are defined by their
common structural features and action as agonists at the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor
(nAChR) with further differentiation by their ionization at physiological pH and target site
specificity between insects and mammals, i.e., the neonicotinoids are not ionized and
selective for the insect nAChR, and the nicotinoids are ionized and selective for the
mammalian nAChR. Whereas ionized nicotine binds at an anionic subsite in the
mammalian nAChR, the negatively tipped nitro or cyano neonicotinoids interact with a
proposed unique subsite consisting of cationic amino acid residue(s) in the insect
nAChR making for both a safe yet highly effective insecticide98.
40
Provado (imidacloprid) 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine, in the nitroguanidine group, was introduced in 1991 as the first
neonicotinyl in pest management, presently manufactured by Bayer Agricultural
Products. In tree fruits it is generally used as a systemic insecticide and stomach poison.
It does have contact insecticidal properties, however the residue is relatively short-lived
in the environment. Instead, it is absorbed into leaves, where is can have a long
effective residue. It has very high levels of toxicity at very low rates99. The chemical
works by interfering with the transmission of stimuli in the insect nervous system, causes
a blockage in the neuronal nicotinergic pathway. As this is more abundant in insects
than in warm-blooded animals, the chemical selectively is more toxic to insects than
mammals. The blockage leads to the accumulation of acetylcholine resulting in insect
paralysis and mortality100.
On Lepidopteran pests such as codling moth Provado has only low to moderate
toxicity in laboratory studies and provided very little suppression of fruit injury in a field
trials. Against pandemis leafroller and Lacanobia fruitworm it provided very little
suppression of larval densities in west coast stuies101. Provado is primarily used as an
aphicide in Washington state. In New York it has provided adequate suppression of
leafminers, white apple and rose leafhopper and has shown activity against apple
maggot in recent studies102. Provado has shown apparent in-direct effect on mites in
regards to mite build-up. Provado doesn’t appear to have a negative impact on primary
mite predators via contact but appears to have detrimental effects upon feeding on
phytophagous mite that have fed on imidacloprid.
In NYS imidacloprid has also been shown to be effective against whiteflies, thrips,
scale crawlers, pear pyslla, mealybugs, some beetle and weevil species. It has also
shown activity against pear midge when applied at petal fall. This material is detrimental
to Stethorus punctum, an important predatory beetle on mite. Provado is relatively safe
for mammals but has a high bee-poisoning hazard, exhibiting toxicity on contact plus
repellency and hive disorientation.
Actara (thiamethoxam) 3-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]tetrahydro-5-methyl-N-
nitro-4H-1,3,5-oxadiazin-4-imine, in the nitroguanidine group, by Syngenta, has activity
and use much the same as Provado, with the same target pests and ‘transtemic’ activity.
It has demonstrated efficacy against the mired campylomma, although it cannot be used
41
during bloom due to high bee toxicity. Actara is effective against the green apple and
spiria aphid, with suppression of woolly apple and rosy apple aphid. It has little activity
against leafminer but workes well against the leafhopper complex.
On pears actara has much the same activity against pear psylla and grape
mealybug as Provado. And like Provado, Actara is very effective against the early
instars. Effectiveness against older instars of these pests is greatly reduced, and there is
relatively little activity against adults. As with the other neonicotinoids in general the use
of oil as an adjuvant xhas shown increases in mortality of pear psylla and grape
mealybug.
Actara, unlike Provado, is registered for prebloom use in pear. It should not be
applied later than whitebud when used prebloom, to avoid any potential for effects on
bees. Actara can also be effective in petal fall applications, as with Provado, provided
the pear psylla and grape mealybug are of the appropriate stage. Actara is at least equal
in efficacy to Provado when used against summer generations of both pear psylla and
grape mealybug. On the west coast summer applications of Actara have negative
effects on the bio-control agent campylomma where populations of this important
beneficial aid in late season pest management.
Actara does not appear to be directly toxic to predatory mites, thus the overall risk
of mite disruption is currently rated low. Actara has a high degree of toxicity to bees and
bee exposure should be avoided.
Assail (acetamiprid) (1E)-N-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N’-cyano-N-
methylethanimidamide, in the pyridylmethylamine group, is the first neonicotinyl
registered on apples and pears that has a high degree of lepidopteran activity, primarily
limited to codling moth. It was originally developeded by Bayer Agricultural Products but
was acquired by Nippon Soda Company and Aventis CropScience (U.S. distribution and
marketing rights obtained by Cerexagri)103. Assail was very active against codling moth,
performing more like the standard OP’s. Assail can be applied at the same timing as
Azinphosmethyl and Phosmet for CM management with 2 applications per generation
starting at egg hatch. This program has provided control of codling moth larvae similar to
the industry standards. When Assail is applied topically it is also highly toxic to codling
moth eggs. A good resistance management strategy would be to limit Assail applications
42
to one generation/year. Regarding the leafroller complex, laboratory bioassays indicate
that Assail has only low toxicity to leafroller neonate larvae.
As with the other neonicotinyls, assail has good activity against leafhopper and
the green aphid complex, with less activity on rosy apple and woolly apple aphid. Assail
also is a good Hemiptera material having a bee toxicity rating of III it can be used at
bloom when bees are not active, the ideal timing for the mired bug complex. Leafminers
suppression, like other neonicotinyls, has been observed
Assail has much the same activity as Actara and Provado for pear psylla and
grape mealybug. It is relatively safe for bees, and can be used before bloom at the
optimal timing for controlling both pear psylla and grape mealybug. The relative efficacy
of Assail against pear psylla is reduced with late summer applications.
Assail appears to have potential to become a viable alternative to OP’s for
codling moth control in pear. Due to resistance management concerns it should be
viewed primarily for pear psylla and grape mealybug management. Neonicotinyls such
as Assail should be used carefully against Leps as they would be selecting for
resistance in pear psylla.
Given the efficacy against codling moth, the tendency may be to use multiple
applications in a season. As with provado and the pyrethroids, two or four spray
programs have caused substantial mite flare-ups on apple. At least some of this effect is
attributable to efficacy on predatory mites. The risk can be mitigated if only a single
application is made to an orchard with a stable mite situation using the addition of 1% oil
to the Assail applications.
Brief worker Restricted Entry Interval (REI) of 12 hrs, a moderate Pre-harvest
Interval (PHI) of 7 days and low toxicity rating (Category III) allow the use of Assail as a
viable organophosphate replacement. Practical resistance management strategies
would limit the number of neonicotinyl applications in any given season. The use of
multiple neonicotinyl applications by the use of Assail, Provado and Actara should be
limited or avoided when possible.
Calpyso (thiacloprid) (Z)-[3-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-2-
thiazolidinylidene]cyanamide in the pyridylmethylamine group is next in the line of
neonicotinyls with federal registration on apples and pears (it has not received NY
registration as of the end of 2004). It is also presently manufactured by Bayer
43
Agricultural Products. It targets aphids, leafhoppers, leafminers, psylla, plum curculio,
apple maggot, Oriental fruit moth and codling moth. This material is also translaminar
but its residue has a stronger plant surface profile than the other neonicotinyl. Calypso
has a broad spectrum of pest activity, and is effective on piercing/sucking insect pests,
plum curculio, and the internal feeding insects of fruit, including codling moth and apple
maggot. West coast emphasis is for its use on codling moth, and in NY as an OP
replacement for plum curculio.
Calypso also has greater restrictions on its label than the earlier neonicotinyls.
Restrictions for use of Calypso in pome fruit include a REI of 12 hours, a PHI of 30 days,
and a maximum usage of 16 fluid ounces (0.5 lb AI) per acre during one growing
season. It is not allowed use between pink and petal fall in both pears and apples, and a
100 ft buffer for aerial applications are imposed near rivers and streams. There are also
several endangered species restrictions.
Clutch (chlothianidin) [C(E)]-N-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]-N”-methyl-N”-
nitroguanidine, in the nitroguanidine group of neonicotinyls, from Arvesta Corp.( a group
member of Tokyo-based Arysta LifeScience Corporation). It has shown activity against
aphids, leafhoppers, thrips, whiteflies, Colorado potato beetles, leafminers, scale, mealy
bugs and certain Lepidopteran species. Clutch is currently undergoing expedited
registration review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as an
"organophosphate replacement" compound104.
As the chlothianidin chemistry is quite new in tree fruit, field trials on insect
efficacy are limited. Laboratory bioassays of Clutch against codling moth neonate larvae
indicate that although it has a fairly low LC50, it does not appear to have the same acute
toxicity as Calypso or Assail105. However, laboratory bioassays indicate that Clutch has
only low toxicity to leafroller neonate larvae.
Clutch appears to have the same activity against pear psylla and grape mealybug
as the other neonicotinyls. Use of this material against codling moth in pear indicates
that it may be more important to direct this class of insecticides at pear psylla rather than
codling moth, where there are other effective alternatives.
Carboxamides Savey (Hexythiazox) rel-(4R,5R)-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-N-cyclohexyl-4-methyl-2-
oxo-3-thiazolidinecarboxamide carboxamide, is a carboxamide used as a contact and
44
stomach-poison acaricide. It is effective against eggs and larvae of European red mite
but it will not kill adults. It is registered for a single application in all pome and stone
fruits in NY State, and may be used up to 28 days before harvest. It has demonstrated
excellent residual control, and has a low bee-poisoning hazard, is safe to beneficial
insects and predatory mites. Carboxylic Acid Esters Acramite (Bifenazate) 1-methylethyl 2-(4-methoxy[1,1Åå-biphenyl]-3-
yl)hydrazinecarboxylate is a hydrazine compound from a relatively new class of
chemistries, carboxylic acid ester. Its mode of action is a GABA (gamma-aminobutryric
acid) agonist in insects, but has not been confirmed in mites. Bifenazate was recently
registered for use on tree fruits, including apple, pear, peach, nectarine, plums, prunes.
Bifenazate is a specific and selective miticide, with good activity against spider mites but
with no rust mite activity. Bifenazate is primarily used against motile stages, but may
have some ovicidal activity.
In pears bifenazate can control low to moderate populations of twospotted spider
mites, and will suppress heavy infestations. Bifenazate is limited to one application per
year in pear to help slow the first development of resistance and maintain efficacy. Granulosis Viruses Cyd-X, Carpovirusine, and Virosoft CM are active formulations of codling moth
granulosis virus available in Washington State. Data suggests that they all are highly
virulent, with similar efficacy between the products if used at equivalent rates of virus
particles/acre. Bioassays of field-aged residues have shown residual control of these
products broke down after 7 days in the field suggesting a re-treatment interval of 10-14
days.
The codling moth granulosis virus has been known for many years and different
companies have attempted to formulate it as a biological reduced risk pesticide. Most
formulations have not provided consistent control. The virus is subject to rapid
degradation by UV light and high temperatures. The virus has the potential if effective to
cause mortality of codling moth larva but this usually does not occur fast enough to
prevent its entry into the fruit. Granulosis viruses are species specific, and have been
identified for many lepidopteran pests. The advantages of the codling moth granulosis
45
virus is its specificity on codling moth and will not interfere with activities of natural
enemies.
Field trials indicated that delayed mortality is common and after 14 days many
larvae exposed to virus were still alive and actively feeding, allowing little suppression of
fruit injury in high pressure orchards after one generation of use106. The full effect of the
virus treatments was not noted until the subsequent generation, when the population did
not develop to expected levels. After the first generation there was no significant
reduction in fruit damage relative to the untreated control in any virus treatment.
However, a greater than 90% reduction of second generation adults was noted in all
virus treatments. It was not clear whether the larvae were dying prior to exiting the fruit,
as fully mature larvae or pupae. Codling moth granulosis virus has no activity against
leafrollers, and although a pandemis granulosis virus for this leafroller has been
identified, it has never been formulated into an insecticide. No activity against beneficial
arthropods has been observed.
Granulosis virus have greatest value for organic growers. Granulosis virus
treatments in a rotational program using diverse tools such as mating disruption, oil, and
a fast acting larvicide provide a strong resistance management strategy.
Diphenyloxazolines Zeal, Secure (Extoxazole) 2-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-
ethoxyphenyl]-4,5-dihydrooxazole, is an insect growth regulator (IGR) for mites and
aphids, manufactured by Valent USA. Extoxazole was registered in 2004. The mode of
action (MOA) is unclassified or unknown at this time. As a miticide, extoxazole is an
adulticide, active as a adult mite sterilant having no toxicity on mite adults but does have
ovicidal efficacy and shown to have motile mortality. Insecticidal Soaps M-Pede, produced by Mycogen, is a concentrate made from biodegradable fatty
acids. As a contact insecticides it is effective against soft bodied arthropods such as
aphids, mealybugs, and pear psylla. In providing suppression of pear psylla in a
seasonal spray program, the residual period is short and uniform drying conditions are
required to prevent droplet residues on the fruit surface. It has a low bee-poisoning
hazard.
Benzoyl Urea Growth Regulators
46
Diamond (novaluron) is a chitin inhibitor developed by Crompton Corporation,
registered in May 2004. Novaluron is active on the lepidopteran complex, plant bugs,
stink bugs, and shows suppression of whiteflies and thrips. Makhteshim-Agan of North
America, Inc. has a Section 24(c) supplemental label for use in West Virginia for the
control of codling moth, oriental fruit moth, and various leafroller species on apple107.
Novaluron is an insect growth regulator (IGR) that interferes with the insect’s ability to
form chitin, thus disrupting the molting process, effective only against the immature
stages of insects, and will not kill adults. Route of insect entry is primarily through
ingestion, with some contact activity. Toxicity to eggs has also been demonstrated for
some insect species. Presently it has a maximum of 4 applications (150 fl oz/acre) per
season, a 12 hour REI and 14 day PHI.
Tetronic Acids Envidor (Spirodiclofen) 3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-oxaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-
yl 2,2-dimethylbutanoate, is a tetronic acid acaricide, a new class of chemistry which
disrupts the endocrine system, affecting energy production. Spirodiclofen is an IGR-type
insecticide with slow activity not acutely toxic to adults. Spirodiclofen may affect some
insect pests as well as mites, but has not been well studied in tree fruits108. Unlike many
of the other new chemistries, there is evidence that oil may be antagonistic to
Spirodiclofen. Results to date have shown that spirodiclofen has promising activity
against mites on apple. One example of a trial conducted on a rising population showed
the typical slow activity expected of an IGR insecticide. After five days, a population of
10-15 mites/leaf was still present, but sufficient control for the rest of the season was
noted. On pear spirodiclofen has been demonstrated in field tests to be an effective
miticide. Its activity is much like that of Acramite and Secure, working well to control
moderate populations and suppress high populations. These products will likely not be
adequate ‘rescue’ treatments due to their relatively slow activity. Spirodiclofen will fit well
with Acramite and Zeal in an acaricide resistance management program as all three
miticides effectively employ different modes of action. Organotins Vendex (Hexakis Or Fenbutatin Oxide) hexakis(2-methyl-2-
phenylpropyl)distannoxane is an organotin compound registered for the control of a wide
range of plant-feeding mites on several fruit crops, including strains that are resistant to
47
some other miticides. Resistance to the organotin Plictran has been well documented in
the Pacific Northwest, and it is highly likely that resistance to Fenbutatin oxide is also
present109. Fenbutatin oxide is nontoxic to honey bees, and is rela- tively nontoxic to
predatory mites. Fenbutatin oxide is toxic to fish and has a low bee-poisoning hazard. It
is not to be applied more than 4 times/season or more than 3 times between petal fall
and harvest.
Oxadiazenes
Avaunt (Indoxacarb) is the first member of the oxadiazine class of chemicals registered
for insect control on apple and pear. It is primarily effective against various lepidoptera,
and has activity against selected tree fruit insects. Avaunt acts primarily through
ingestion by inhibiting sodium ion entry into nerve cells, resulting in paralysis and death
of the pest species. Indoxacarb results in rapid inhibition of insect feeding, pest
knockdown within 1 to 2 days, and provides crop protection for 7 to 14 days. Indoxacarb
has low mammalian toxicity and has efficacy relative to OP's and pyrethroids in toxicity
to beneficial insects and mites. Indoxacarb is limited to a maximum of 4 applications per
season and total of 24 oz per acre up to 14 days before harvest.
Particle Films Surround (Kaolin) is a naturally occurring clay mineral that has many uses as a
direct and indirect food additive, in food contact items, cosmetics and toiletries, and as
an inert ingredient in many pesticide formulations. When applied, the 95WP crop
protectant forms a white, mineral-based particle film which reduces the damage to
plants caused by arthropod pests, as well as environmental stress caused by solar
effects. In research trials in apples in NY State, it has been shown to be efficacious
against the major tree fruit pests such as plum curculio, internal Lepidoptera such as
codling moth and oriental fruit moth, leafrollers, phytophagous mites, leafhoppers, and
apple maggot. In pears, it has also been shown to suppress pear psylla, and in stone
fruits it reduces feeding damage from Japanese beetle. Frequent applications at 7 to 10-
day intervals beginning pre-bloom and maximal coverage and high rates at 25 to 50
pounds per acre are advised in New York while there is active foliar growth. The
preventative layering of material onto fruitlets prior to pest presence Surround has a low
bee- poisioning hazard.
Phenoxypyrazoles
48
Fujimite (Fenproximate), 1,1-dimethylethyl 4-[[[(E)-[(1,3-dimethyl-5-phenoxy-1H-
pyrazol-4-yl)methylene]amino]oxy]methyl]benzoate is both a contact
acaricide/insecticide developed by Nichino America, became federally registered in
2004. Fenproximate is registered on apple and pear for the control of various mite
species, white apple leafhopper, and pear psylla. Like Nexter, its mode of action is to
block cellular respiration by acting as a mitochondrial electron transport inhibitor (METI).
It also acts to inhibit molting of immature stages. Mite feeding and oviposition stop soon
after application, with death occurring in 4-7 days. FujiMite has a restricted entry interval
of 12 hours and a preharvest interval of 14 days.
Pheromones For Mating Disruption Synthetic pheromones for disrupting the chemical communication of certain insect
pests have been formulated to prevent them from mating and producing larvae that
injure the crop. Pest-specific pheromones are released from dispensers or
microcapsules placed or sprayed in the orchard before the initiation of flight, and can
reduce or in some cases eliminate the need for supplementary insecticidal sprays. This
approach works best in large (5-10A or more), rectangular plantings, where the
pheromone concentration in the air is more uniform and can be maintained at a high
level. Border insecticide sprays may be needed in orchards adjacent to sources of adult
immigration or in other high-pressure situations. Each lepidopteran pest requires
pheromones specific for its species and commercial development at present is limited.
The oriental fruit moth formulations are the 3M Sprayable Pheromone for OFM,
manufactured by 3M, Checkmate OFM-F, manufactured by Suterra, Isomate-M 100
manufactured by CBC. Peachtree borer formulation is the Isomate-LPTB also
manufactured by CBC.
Recently 3M Canada has made a decision to exit the sprayable pheromone
business for forestry and agriculture. Sprayable pheromones are also produced
by Suterra Inc. (Bend, OR), has submitted an application for registration of
CheckMate OFM-F (for oriental fruit moth). Pyridazinones Nexter (formerly Pyramite) (pyridaben) 4-chloro-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-5-[[[4-(1,1-
dimethylethyl)phenyl]methyl]thio]-3(2H)-pyridazinone belongs to the pyridazinone class
49
of miticides. Nexter’s mode of action is as a mitochondrial electron transport inhibitor
(METI), blocking cellular respiration. Resistance management would suggest that the
use of METI miticides be limited to one application/year. Pyridaben has been shown to
be an effective miticide in apple, showing greater activity against European red mite
than twospotted spider mite. Pyridaben is also toxic to apple rust mites. Pyridaben has
been shown to be an effective miticide in pear, having good efficacy against European
red mites. Pyridaben provides good control of pear rust mites and variable, control of
twospotted spider mites. Pyridaben displays control of pear psylla in low to moderate
pressure situations when applied at clusterbud. Pear psylla control is rate dependent, so
rates may need to be increased as pear psylla densities increase.
Tetrazines
Apollo (Clofentezine) 3,6-bis(2-chlorophenyl)-1,2,4,5-tetrazine is a tetrazine
compound used as a contact acaricide. It acts primarily as an ovicide/larvicide and is
particularly effective against the over wintering eggs of European red mite and is not an
effective adulticide. Following early season applications, it gives excellent residual
control. As it is not a systemic acaricide expanding foliage will not contain residue to
control mite moving into untreated foliage.
In apples it is restricted to a 12 hour re-entry interval, a PHI of 45 days, but in
pears, cherries, peaches and apricots it may be used up to 21 days before harvest. It
has a low bee-poisoning hazard, and is safe on beneficial insects, and predatory mites.
Development of resistance to clofentezine in mite populations has occurred.
Quinolines. Kanemite (Acequinocyl) 2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-1,4-naphthalenedione Kanemite
belongs to the quinoline class of insecticides from Arvesta Corporation registered for the
control of European red mite and twospotted spider mite on apple and pear. Its mode of
action is as a mitochondrial electron transport inhibitor (METI), blocking cellular
respiration, similar to Nexter and Fujimite yet at a differing target site than the other
compounds. In pear acequinocyl appears to be a good miticide alternative for the control
of twospotted spider mites with activity against European red mite. Limited and
inconclusive data requires further studies on this compound. It has been classified by
EPA as a reduced risk compound, and has a 14-day PHI and 12-hour REI.
50
Table 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF CROP PROTECTANTS USED ON TREE FRUITS CROSS REFERENCE OF CHEMICAL VS. TRADE NAMES OF PESTICIDES. 2004 Trade Name Formulation Active Ingredient Type Company 2,4-D Amine 3.8 EC 2,4-D H Agriliance 2,4-D Amine 4 3.8 EC 2,4-D H Agriliance Accel 2% L 6-BA + gibberellic acid GR Valent BioSciences Acramite 50WS 50WS bifenazate A Crompton Actara 25WDG 25WDG thiamethoxam I Syngenta Agree 3.8WG 3.8WG Bacillus thuringiensis (aizawai) I Certis Agri-Mek 0.15EC 0.15EC abamectin A, I Syngenta Agri-mycin 17WP 17WP streptomycin B Syngenta Aliette 80 WDG 80WDG phosetyl-Al F Bayer Ambush 25WP 25WP permethrin I AMVAC Ambush 2EC 2EC permethrin I Syngenta Amid-Thin W 8.4WP naphthalene-acetamide GR AMVAC Amine 4 2,4-D 3.8EC 2,4-D H UAP Apogee 27.5DF 27.4DF prohexadione calcium B, GR BASF Apollo 4SC 4SC clofentezine A Makhteshim-Agan Asana XL 0.66EC 0.66EC esfenvalerate I DuPont Avaunt 30WDG 30WDG indoxacarb I DuPont Aza-Direct 1.2L 1.2L azadirachtin I Gowan Azatin XL Plus 3L 3L azadirachtin I Olympic Basicop 53WP Copper sulfate F Griffin Bayleton 50DF 50DF triadimefon F Bayer Biobit XL 2.1FC 2.1FC Bacillus thuringiensis I Valent BioSciences Captan 50WP 50WP captan F Micro Flo Captan 80WP 80WP captan F Micro Flo Captec 4L 4L captan F Micro Flo Carbaryl 4F (Drexel) 4F carbaryl I Drexel Carbaryl 4F (UAP) 4F carbaryl I UAP Carzol 92SP 92SP formetanate hydrochloride A, I Gowan Casoron 4G 4G dichlobenil H Crompton Checkmate OFM-F 24.60% pheromone I Suterra Confirm 2F 2F tebufenozide I Dow AgroSciences Cornerstone 4EC glyphosate H Agriliance Cuprofix Disperss 20% Copper sulfate F Cerexagri Damoil 98%Oil petroleum oil I, M Drexel Chemical Co. Danitol 2.4EC 2.4EC fenpropathrin I Valent BioSciences Devrinol 50DF 50DF napropamide H United Phosphorus Diazinon 50WP 50WP diazinon I Microflo Diazinon 50WP 50WP diazinon I UAP Diazinon 50WP 50WP diazinon I Makhteshim Agan Diazinon AG600WBC 5L diazinon I UAP Diazinon AG600WBC 5L diazinon I Syngenta D.z.n. Diazinon 50WP 50WP diazinon I Syngenta Dicofol 4EC dicofol A Makhteshim Agan Dimate 4EC dimethoate I Agriliance Dimethoate E267 2.67EC dimethoate I Gowan Dimethoate 4EC 4EC dimethoate I Helena Dimethoate 4EC 4EC dimethoate I Drexel Dimethoate 400 4EC dimethoate I UAP Dimethoate 267EC 2.67EC dimethoate I UAP Dimethoate 4EC 4EC dimethoate I Micro Flo Dipel DF 54 DF Bacillus thuringiensis I Valent BioSciences Dithane DF Rain Shield 75DF mancozeb F Dow AgroSciences Dithane M-45 80WP 80WP mancozeb F Dow AgroSciences Dithane DF 75DF mancozeb F Dow AgroSciences Dithane F-45 80WP 4F mancozeb F Dow AgroSciences Diuron 4L 4L diuron H Agriliance Endosulfan 3EC 3EC endosulfan I Gowan Endosulfan 50 WSB 50WSP endosulfan I Gowan Endosulfan 3EC 3EC endosulfan I Micro Flo
51
Endosulfan 50 WSB 50WSP endosulfan I Micro Flo Endosulfan 3EC 3EC endosulfan I Drexel Entrust 80WP spinosad I Dow AgroSciences Esteem 35WP 35WP pyriproxyfen I Valent BioSciences Ethephon 2 L ethephon GR Micro Flo Co. Ethrel 2 EC ethephon GR Bayer Exilis Plus 2%Sol BA GR Fine Agrochemicals Ferbam Granuflo 76 WDG ferbam F UCB Flint 50WG 50WG trifloxystrobin F Bayer Fruitone N 3.1% sol NAA GR AMVAC Galigan 2E 2EC oxyfluorfen H Makhteshim Agan Goal 2XL 2lbAI/gal oxyfluorfen H Dow AgroSciences Gramoxone Max 2AS paraquat H Syngenta Guthion 50WS 50WS azinphos-methyl I Bayer Hyvar X 80WP 80WP bromacil H DuPont Hyvar XL 2lb AI/gal bromacil H DuPont Imidan 70WP 70WP phosmet I Gowan Isomate LPTB tie pheromone I CBC Americas Isomate-M 100 tie pheromone I CBC Americas Isomate-M Rosso tie pheromone I CBC Americas Javelin 7.5WG 7.5WG Bacillus thuringiensis I Certis Karmex 80DF 80DF diuron H Griffin Kelthane 35WP 35WP dicofol A Dow AgroSciences Kelthane 50WP 50WP dicofol A Dow AgroSciences Kelthane 50WSP 50WSP dicofol A Dow AgroSciences Kerb 50WP 51WP pronamide H Dow AgroSciences Kocide 4.5LF 3 LF copper hydroxide F Griffin L.L.C. Kocide 101 77WP copper hydroxide F Griffin L.L.C. Kocide 2000 58.3WP copper hydroxide F Griffin L.L.C. Kocide DF 61.40% copper hydroxide F Griffin L.L.C. Fruit Fix Conc 200 0.44F NAA GR AMVAC Fruit Fix Conc 800 1.76F NAA GR AMVAC K-Salt Fruit Fix 200 0.44F NAA GR AMVAC K-Salt Fruit Fix 800 1.76F NAA GR AMVAC KOP-Hydroxide 50 50WP copper hydroxide F Drexel Kumulus 80DF 80DF sulfur F Micro Flo Lannate 90SP 90SP methomyl I DuPont Lannate LV 2.4L 2.4L methomyl I DuPont Lorsban 4EC 4EC chlorpyrifos I Dow AgroSciences Lorsban 50WS 50WS chlorpyrifos I Gowan Mankocide DF mancozeb + cu hydroxide F Griffin Manzate 4F 4F mancozeb F Griffin Manzate 80W 80WP mancozeb F Griffin Manex 4F maneb F Griffin Manzate 75DF 75DF mancozeb F Griffin Mertect 340-F 4.1F thiabendazole F Syngenta Messenger 3WDG 3WDG harpin protein B Eden Bioscience Microthiol 80WP 80WP sulfur F Cerexagri Miller Lime Sulfur Solution LC calcium polysuflide FIM Miller Chemical & Fe Mirage Plus 4EC glyphosate H Monsanto M-Pede 49L 49L insecticidal soap I Dow AgroSciences Neemix 4.5L 4.5L azadirachtin I Certis Nova 40WS 40WS myclobutanil F Dow AgroSciences NuCop 3L 3L copper hydroxide F Micro Flo NuCop 50DF 50DF copper hydroxide F Micro Flo Oryza AG 4EC oryzalin H Agvalue OxiDate 27F 27F hydrogen dioxide F Biosafe Systems Penncozeb 75DF 75DF mancozeb F Cerexagri Penncozeb 80WP 80WP mancozeb F Cerexagri Perlan 3.6%Sol GA4+7 + BA GR Fine Agrochemicals Phaser 50WSB 50WSB endosulfan I Bayer Phaser 3EC 3EC endosulfan I Bayer Poast 1.5EC sethoxydim H Micro Flo
52
Polyram 80DF 80DF metiram F UAP Pounce 25WP 25WP permethrin I FMC Pounce 3.2EC 3.2EC permethrin I FMC Princep 4L 4L simazine H Syngenta Princep Caliber 90 90 simazine H Syngenta Procure 50WS 50WS triflumizole F Crompton, Uniroyal Pro-Gibb 4% 4% S GA3 GR Valent BioSciences Pro-Gibb Plus 2X 20SP GA3 GR Valent BioSciences Pro-Vide 2%S GA4+7 GR Valent BioSciences Promalin 1.8+1.8L GA(4+7) +BA GR Valent BioSciences Provado 1.6F 1.6F imidacloprid I Bayer Prowl 3.3EC 3.3EC pendimethalin H BASF Pyramite 60WS 60WS pyridaben A, I BASF Pyrellin EC 1.6EC pyrethrins/rotenone I Webb Wright Rely 1L 1L glufosinate-ammonium H Bayer ReTain 15%S AVG GR Valent BioSciences RiteSize 2%S GA(4+7) +BA GR Nufarm Ridomil Gold 4EC 4EC mefanoxam F Syngenta Roundup Original 4 lb AI/gal glyphosate H Monsanto Roundup Ultra Max 4 lb AI/gal glyphosate H Monsanto Rubigan 1EC 1EC fenarimol F Gowan Savey 50WP 50WP hexythiazox A Gowan Serenade 10WP 10WP Bacillus subtilis B,F AgraQuest Sevin 80S 80S carbaryl I Bayer Sevin 80WS 80WS carbaryl I Bayer Sevin XLR 4F carbaryl I Bayer Sevin 4F 4F carbaryl I Bayer Simazine 90DF 90DF simazine H Drexel Sinbar 80WP 80WP terbacil H DuPont Solicam 80DF 80DF norflurazon H Syngenta Sovran 50WDG 50WDG kresoxim-methyl F BASF SpinTor 2SC 2SC spinosad I Dow AgroSciences Supracide 25WP 25WP methidathion I Gowan Supracide 2EC 2EC methidathion I Gowan Surflan AS 4AS oryzalin H Dow AgroSciences Surround 95WP 95WP kaolin A,E,I Engelhard Syllit 65WP 65WP dodine F UAP Tenn-Cop 5E 5E copper salts F Griffin Thiodan 3EC 3EC endosulfan I Bayer Thiodan 50 WP 50WP endosulfan I Bayer Thiodan 3EC 3EC endosulfan I FMC Thiodan 50 WP 50WP endosulfan I FMC Thionex 3EC 3EC endosulfan I Makhteshim Agan Thionex 50 WP 50WP endosulfan I Makhteshim Agan Thiram Granuflo 75WDG thiram F UCB T Methyl 70W 70WP thiophanate methyl F MicroFlo Topsin M 70WSB 70WSB thiophanate-methyl F Cerexagri Topsin M WSB 70WSB thiophanate-methyl F Cerexagri Tree-Hold A-112 15.1% Sol. NAA GR AMVAC Tree-Hold RTU 1.15% Sol. NAA GR AMVAC Typy 3.6% Sol. GA(4+7) +BA GR Nufarm Vangard 50WG 50WG cyprodinil F Syngenta Vendex 50WP 50WP hexakis, fenbutatin-oxide A DuPont Vydate 2L 2L oxamyl I DuPont Warrior 1CS lambda-cyhalothrin I Syngenta Weedar 64 3.8 3.8 lb AI/gal 2,4-D (phenoxy) H Nufarm Wilthin 79% L AMADS GR Entek Corp Ziram 76DF 76DF ziram F Cerexagri Ziram Granuflo 76DF ziram F UCB
Retrieved from www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ ent/treefruit/04pdf/04cocpuotf.pdf
53
Table 2 Chemical Manufacturers 2004 – CDMS (http://www.cdms.net/manuf/manuf.asp)
Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corp. LT BioSyn, Inc. Ag Formulators, Inc. Makhteshim-Agan of North America, Inc. AgraQuest, Inc. MGK Company Agriliance Crop Nutrient Micro Flo Company LLC Agriliance, LLC Miller Chemical & Fertilizer Corp. Agrimar Corporation Milliken Turf Products Agrivert, Inc. Mineral Research & Devel. Corp. AgroSolutions LLC Monsanto Canada, Inc. AgValue, Inc. Monsanto Company Albaugh, Inc./Agri Star Monterey AgResources Amvac Chemical Corporation Moore Agricultural Products Co., Inc. Applied Biochemists Nichino America, Inc. Arvesta Canada Nufarm Americas Inc. Arvesta Corporation Nufarm Turf & Specialty (formerly Riverdale) BASF Ag Products Olympic Horticultural Products Company BASF Canada ORO Agri, Inc. BASF Specialty Products Pace International LLC Bayer CropScience Pacific Biocontrol Corporation Bayer ES Mosquito Control PBI Gordon Corporation Bayer ES Professional Pest Control Phelps Dodge Corporation Bayer ES Turf & Ornamental (Chipco) PROKoZ, Inc. Becker Underwood, Inc. RICECO BioWorks, Inc. RNA Brandt Consolidated, ClawEl Division Roots Plant Care Group/Novozymes Biologicals, Inc. Britz Fertilizers, Inc. Royster-Clark, Inc. Cerexagri, Inc. Sanitek Products Inc./Sanag Cerexagri, Inc. Decco Post-Harvest Scentry Biologicals, Inc. Certis USA, L.L.C. Sipcam Agro USA, Inc. Chem One Ltd. Stoller Enterprises, Inc. Cheminova, Inc. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) Cleary Chemical Corporation Suterra LLC Continental Sulfur Company Sylvan Bioproducts, Inc. Crompton/Uniroyal Chemical Syngenta Crop Protection Canada, Inc. Custom Agricultural Formulators Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Diamond R Fertilizer Company, Inc. Syngenta Professional Products Dow AgroSciences LLC Taminco, Inc. Drexel Chemical Company Target Specialty Products, Inc. Dupont Canada Crop Protection TENKOZ, Inc. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. (TKI) EcoSMART Technologies, Inc. Tri Corporation EDEN Bioscience Corporation TRICAL EDM Industries, Inc. UAP - Loveland Industries, Inc. Emerald BioAgriculture Corporation UAP - Loveland Products, Inc. Engelhard Corporation United Phosphorus Inc. Entek Corporation United Phosphorus Inc. Canada FarmSaver.com / Quali-Pro United Suppliers, Inc. FarmSaver.com, LLC Universal Crop Protection Alliance LLC Fine Agrochemicals Ltd. Valent Agricultural Products FMC Corporation Valent BioSciences Canada, Ltd. Georgia Gulf Sulfur Corporation Valent BioSciences Corporation Gowan Company Valent Professional Products Griffin LLC Valent U.S.A. Corporation Canada Gro-Pro LLC Van Diest Supply Company Helena Chemical Company Vegetation Management LLC Helm Agro US, Inc. Verdicon (formerly United Horticultural Supply) Independent Agribusiness Professionals, Inc. Webb Wright Corporation J. R. Simplot Company/Plant Health Tech. Western Farm Service JH Biotech, Inc. Wilbur-Ellis Company JMS Flower Farms, Inc. Wilco Distributors, Inc. Knapp Manufacturing Company
54
Table 2a Number And Percent Of Crop Protectant By Manufacturer Used On Tree Fruits
in 2004 # of total fruit % # of Company protectants of total fruit insecticides / (fungi.,insect.,herb. etc.) (N=91) acaricides
1. Syngenta 16 18 5 2. Bayer 12 13 5 3. Dow AgroSciences 11 12 5 4. DuPont 8 9 6 5. Gowan 8 9 6 6. Griffin 7 8 - 7. BASF 6 7 - 8. Cerexagri 4 4 - 9. Drexel 4 4 5 10. UAP 4 4 1 11. Certis 3 3 2 12. Crompton 3 3 - 13. Valent BioSciences 3 3 4 14. Agriliance 2 2 - 15. FMC 2 2 2 16. Helena 2 2 2 17. Makhteshim 2 2 2 18. Micro Flo 2 2 1 19. UCB 2 2 - 20. Arvesta 1 1 - 21. Biosafe Systems 1 1 - 22. Clean Crop 1 1 - 23. Eden Bioscience 1 1 - 24. Engelhard 1 1 1 25. Monsanto 1 1 - 26. Nufarm Americas 1 1 - 27. Prentiss 1 1 1 28. United Phosphorus 1 1 - 29. Webb Wright 1 1 1
55
Table 3 Pounds of Pesticide Active Ingredient Used in U.S. Fruit and Nut Crop Production,
Two Year Periods, 1988-97 Pounds of active ingredient in thousands Acres Grown Crop Group Years (000) Herbicides/PGR Ins./Miticide Fungicides Nem./FumigantsSulfur/oil Total Fruits & Nuts 1988/89 4,458 11,447 34,885 30,871 17,051 102,343 196,597 1992/93 4,616 15,061 37,051 29,954 16,653 117,867 216,585 1996/97 5,126 20,103 40,439 35,608 10,703 117,563 224,416
Table 4 Insect and Mite Pests on Apple requiring Control Measures Cornell Recommends for NY State - 2004
American Plum Borer
Apple & Spirea Aphid
Apple Maggot
Apple Rust Mite
Codling Moth
Lesser Appleworm
Oriental Fruit Moth
Comstock Mealybug
Cutworms
Dogwood Borer
American Plum Borer
European Apple Sawfly
European Corn Borer
European Red Mite
Green Fruitworm
Mullein Plant Bug
Obliquebanded Leafroller
Oystershell Scale
Plum Curculio
Redbanded Leafroller
San Jose Scale
Spotted Tentiform Leafmnr
Apple Blotch Leafminer
Tarnished Plant Bug
Variegated Leafroller
Sparganothis Fruitworm
White Apple Leafhopper
Rose Leafhopper
Potato Leafhopper
Woolly Apple Aphid
56
Table 5 Various Classes of Insecticide and Miticide used on Tree Fruit. 2004
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Endosulfan (Thiodan) Dicofol (Kelthane)
Organophosphates Azinphos-Methyl (Guthion) Chlorpyrifos (Lorsban) Diazinon (D.Z.N.) Dimethoate Malathion Methidathion (Supracide) Phosmet (Imidan)
Carbamates Carbaryl (Sevin) Methomyl (Lannate) Oxamyl (Vydate) Formetanate Hydrochloride (Carzol)
Pyrethroids Esfenvalerate (Asana Xl). Fenpropathrin (Danitol) Lambda-Cyhalothrin (Warrior) Permethrin (Ambush, Pounce)
Horticultural Minerial Oils Petroleum Oil Emulsions (Sunspray 6e, Ultra-Fine, Stylet-Oil Damoil) Insecticidal Soaps
Biodegradable Fatty Acids (M-Pede) Abamectin
Abamectin (Agri-Mek) *Emamectin Benzoate (Proclaim) *Milbemectin (Mesa)
Amidene Amitraz (Mitac)
Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt, Dipel, Biobit, Jav-Elin, Agree, Mvp)
Carboxamide Hexythiazox (Savey)
Carboxylic Acid Ester Bifenazate (Acramite)
Chloronicotinyl Imidacloprid (Provado) Thiamethoxam (Actara) Acetamiprid (Assail) *Thiacloprid (Calypso) **Chlothianidin (**Clutch)
CM Granulosis Virus Cyd-X, Carpovirusine, Virosoft CM
Diphenyloxazoline Extoxazole (Zeal, Secure)
Insecticidal Soaps Biodegradable Fatty Acids (M-Pede)
Insect Growth Regulator Azadirachtin
Aza-Direct, Azatin Xl Plus, Neemix 4.5)
Thiadiazine *Buprofezin (Applaud)
Formamidine Amitraz (Mitac) Pears only
Juvenile Hormone Analog / mimic Pyriproxyfen (Esteem) Tebufenozide (Confirm) Methoxyfenozide (Intrepid)
Benzoyl Urea Growth Regulator Diflubenzuron (Dimilin) Novaluron/difluorobenzamide (Diamond)
*Tetronic Acid *Spirodiclofen (Envidor)
Organotin Hexakis Or Fenbutatin Oxide (Vendex)
Oxadiazene Indoxacarb (@ Avaunt)
Particle Film Kaolin (Surround)
*Phenoxypyrazole *Fenpyroximate (Fujimite)
Pyridazinone Pyridaben (Pyramite = Nexter)
Spinosad Spinosyn A And Spinosyn D (Spintor, Entrust)
Tetrazine Clofentezine (Apollo)
*Quinoline *Acequinocyl (Kanemite)
* Not registered in NYS as of 2004. ** Not registered, @ not registered for use in Nassau or Suffolk Counties. Taken from: Cornell Recommends for Tree Fruit Management 2004; New Insecticides and Miticides for Apple and Pear IPM, Washington State Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center, WA
57
Table 6 Compendium of Pesticide Common Names Insecticides * antibiotic insecticides allosamidin thuringiensin * macrocyclic lactone insecticides spinosad * avermectin insecticides abamectin doramectin emamectin eprinomectin ivermectin selamectin * milbemycin insecticides lepimectin milbemectin milbemycin oxime moxidectin * arsenical insecticides calcium arsenate copper acetoarsenite copper arsenate lead arsenate potassium arsenite sodium arsenite * botanical insecticides anabasine azadirachtin d-limonene nicotine pyrethrins cinerins cinerin I cinerin II jasmolin I jasmolin II pyrethrin I pyrethrin II quassia rotenone ryania sabadilla * carbamate insecticides bendiocarb carbaryl * benzofuranyl methylcarbamate insecticides benfuracarb carbofuran carbosulfan decarbofuran furathiocarb * dimethylcarbamate insecticides dimetan dimetilan hyquincarb pirimicarb * oxime carbamate insecticides alanycarb aldicarb aldoxycarb butocarboxim butoxycarboxim methomyl nitrilacarb oxamyl tazimcarb thiocarboxime thiodicarb thiofanox * phenyl methylcarbamate insecticides allyxycarb
aminocarb bufencarb butacarb carbanolate cloethocarb dicresyl dioxacarb EMPC ethiofencarb fenethacarb fenobucarb isoprocarb methiocarb metolcarb mexacarbate promacyl promecarb propoxur trimethacarb XMC xylylcarb * dinitrophenol insecticides dinex dinoprop dinosam DNOC * fluorine insecticides barium hexafluorosilicate cryolite sodium fluoride sodium hexafluorosilicate sulfluramid * formamidine insecticides amitraz chlordimeform formetanate formparanate * fumigant insecticides acrylonitrile carbon disulfide carbon tetrachloride chloroform chloropicrin para-dichlorobenzene 1,2-dichloropropane ethyl formate ethylene dibromide ethylene dichloride ethylene oxide hydrogen cyanide iodomethane methyl bromide methylchloroform methylene chloride naphthalene phosphine sulfuryl fluoride tetrachloroethane * inorganic insecticides borax calcium polysulfide copper oleate mercurous chloride potassium thiocyanate sodium thiocyanate see also arsenical insecticides see also fluorine insecticides * insect growth regulators * chitin synthesis inhibitors bistrifluron buprofezin chlorfluazuron cyromazine diflubenzuron flucycloxuron flufenoxuron hexaflumuron lufenuron
novaluron noviflumuron penfluron teflubenzuron triflumuron * juvenile hormone mimics epofenonane fenoxycarb hydroprene kinoprene methoprene pyriproxyfen triprene * juvenile hormones juvenile hormone I juvenile hormone II juvenile hormone III * moulting hormone agonists chromafenozide halofenozide methoxyfenozide tebufenozide * moulting hormones Éø-ecdysone ecdysterone * moulting inhibitors diofenolan * precocenes precocene I precocene II precocene III * unclassified insect growth regulators dicyclanil * nereistoxin analogue insecticides bensultap cartap thiocyclam thiosultap * nicotinoid insecticides flonicamid * nitroguanidine insecticides clothianidin dinotefuran imidacloprid thiamethoxam * nitromethylene insecticides nitenpyram nithiazine * pyridylmethylamine insecticides acetamiprid imidacloprid nitenpyram thiacloprid * organochlorine insecticides bromo-DDT camphechlor DDT ppÅå-DDT ethyl-DDD HCH gamma-HCH lindane methoxychlor pentachlorophenol TDE * cyclodiene insecticides aldrin bromocyclen chlorbicyclen chlordane
chlordecone dieldrin dilor endosulfan endrin HEOD heptachlor HHDN isobenzan isodrin kelevan mirex * organophosphorus insecticides * organophosphate insecticides bromfenvinfos chlorfenvinphos crotoxyphos dichlorvos dicrotophos dimethylvinphos fospirate heptenophos methocrotophos mevinphos monocrotophos naled naftalofos phosphamidon propaphos TEPP tetrachlorvinphos * organothiophosphate insecticides dioxabenzofos fosmethilan phenthoate * aliphatic organothiophosphate insecticides acethion amiton cadusafos chlorethoxyfos chlormephos demephion demephion-O demephion-S demeton demeton-O demeton-S demeton-methyl demeton-O-methyl demeton-S-methyl demeton-S-methylsulphon disulfoton ethion ethoprophos IPSP isothioate malathion methacrifos oxydemeton-methyl oxydeprofos oxydisulfoton phorate sulfotep terbufos thiometon * aliphatic amide organothiophosphate insecticides amidithion cyanthoate dimethoate ethoate-methyl formothion
58
mecarbam omethoate prothoate sophamide vamidothion * oxime organothiophosphate insecticides chlorphoxim phoxim phoxim-methyl * heterocyclic organothiophosphate insecticides azamethiphos coumaphos coumithoate dioxathion endothion menazon morphothion phosalone pyraclofos pyridaphenthion quinothion * benzothiopyran organothiophosphate insecticides dithicrofos thicrofos * benzotriazine organothiophosphate insecticides azinphos-ethyl azinphos-methyl * isoindole organothiophosphate insecticides dialifos phosmet * isoxazole organothiophosphate insecticides isoxathion zolaprofos * pyrazolopyrimidine organothiophosphate insecticides chlorprazophos pyrazophos * pyridine organothiophosphate insecticides chlorpyrifos chlorpyrifos-methyl * pyrimidine organothiophosphate insecticides butathiofos diazinon etrimfos lirimfos pirimiphos-ethyl pirimiphos-methyl primidophos pyrimitate tebupirimfos
* quinoxaline organothiophosphate insecticides quinalphos quinalphos-methyl * thiadiazole organothiophosphate insecticides athidathion lythidathion methidathion prothidathion * triazole organothiophosphate insecticides isazofos triazophos * phenyl organothiophosphate insecticides azothoate bromophos bromophos-ethyl carbophenothion chlorthiophos cyanophos cythioate dicapthon dichlofenthion etaphos famphur fenchlorphos fenitrothion fensulfothion fenthion fenthion-ethyl heterophos jodfenphos mesulfenfos parathion parathion-methyl phenkapton phosnichlor profenofos prothiofos sulprofos temephos trichlormetaphos-3 trifenofos * phosphonate insecticides butonate trichlorfon * phosphonothioate insecticides mecarphon * phenyl ethylphosphonothioate insecticides fonofos trichloronat * phenyl phenylphosphonothioate insecticides cyanofenphos EPN leptophos
* phosphoramidate insecticides crufomate fenamiphos fosthietan mephosfolan phosfolan pirimetaphos * phosphoramidothioate insecticides acephate isocarbophos isofenphos methamidophos propetamphos * phosphorodiamide insecticides dimefox mazidox mipafox schradan * oxadiazine insecticides indoxacarb * phthalimide insecticides dialifos phosmet tetramethrin * pyrazole insecticides acetoprole ethiprole fipronil pyrafluprole pyriprole tebufenpyrad tolfenpyrad vaniliprole * pyrethroid insecticides * pyrethroid ester insecticides acrinathrin allethrin bioallethrin barthrin bifenthrin bioethanomethrin cyclethrin cycloprothrin cyfluthrin beta-cyfluthrin cyhalothrin gamma-cyhalothrin lambda-cyhalothrin cypermethrin alpha-cypermethrin beta-cypermethrin theta-cypermethrin zeta-cypermethrin cyphenothrin deltamethrin dimefluthrin dimethrin empenthrin fenfluthrin fenpirithrin fenpropathrin fenvalerate
esfenvalerate flucythrinate fluvalinate tau-fluvalinate furethrin imiprothrin metofluthrin permethrin biopermethrin transpermethrin phenothrin prallethrin profluthrin pyresmethrin resmethrin bioresmethrin cismethrin tefluthrin terallethrin tetramethrin tralomethrin transfluthrin * pyrethroid ether insecticides etofenprox flufenprox halfenprox protrifenbute silafluofen * pyrimidinamine insecticides flufenerim pyrimidifen * pyrrole insecticides chlorfenapyr * tetronic acid insecticides spiromesifen * thiourea insecticides diafenthiuron * urea insecticides flucofuron sulcofuron see also chitin synthesis inhibitors * unclassified insecticides closantel crotamiton EXD fenazaflor fenoxacrim flubendiamide hydramethylnon isoprothiolane malonoben metaflumizone metoxadiazone nifluridide pyridaben pyridalyl rafoxanide triarathene triazamate Copyright © 1995–2004 Alan Wood
59
References: 1Moses. Book of Genesis Chapter 3, verse 4-5, Holy Bible, New International Version®. International Bible Society. Zondervan. 2 Moses. Book of Genesis Chapter 3, verse 14-17, Holy Bible, New International Version®. International Bible Society. Zondervan. 3 Magness, J.R. 1937. Progress in Apple Improvement. Yearbook of Agriculture. USDA. Washington. P 575. 4 Mitch Lynd, Great Moments in Apple History. Retrieved December 12, 2004 from (http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/maia/history.html) 4 Beach, S.A. 1903. The Apples of New York. J.B. Lyons Co., Albany: Vol. 1, pp 2. 5 McCandless, L. (Jan. 2000 ) “Cornell, USDA Researchers Prospect for ‘Green Gold’ in Turkey”. The Fruit Grower News, Retrieved December 12, 2004 from www.fruitgrowersnews.com/pages/ 2000/issue00_01/issue00jan_green_gold.html 3Apple Statistics. U.S Apple Association: Retrieved December 12, 2004 from (http://www.usapple.org/consumers/appleguide/index.shtml) 8 Lang, Susan S. 2004. Cornell Chronicle. Vol. 36, No. 15. ‘’An apple a day could help protect against brain-cell damage CU studies find. 9 Mitch Lynd, 2000. Great Moments in Apple History. Retrieved December 12, 2004 from (http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/maia/history.html) 10 General Pear History. Pears USA, website of the Pear Bureau Northwest.: Retrieved December 12, 2004 from http://www.usapears.com/pears/history.asp 11 Hort, Arthur F. 1916. Theophrastus: Enquiry into Plants, Books III-V (Loeb Classic Library) Harvard University Press. January. 12 Dent, Dr. David R., History of Pest Management, Retrieved December 12, 2004 from http://www.ipmrc.com/lib/history.shtml 13 Smith, S. 1952. Poisons And Poisoners Through The Ages. Medico-Legal Journal 20:153-167. 14 L Cilliers & F P Retief. 2000. Poisons, Poisoning And The Drug Trade In Ancient Rome. Akroterion 45 (2000) 88-100 Retrieved January 17, 2005 from http://academic.sun.ac.za/as/journals/akro/akro.html 15 American Chemical Society. Chem.Matters, 2004. p24, Retrieved December 12, 2004 from http://www.chemistry.org 16 van der Krogt, P. Elementymology & Elements Multidict. Retrieved December 12, 2004 from http://www.vanderkrogt.net/elements/elem/as.html 17 Knight, D. M. 1970. Elements of Chemistry. Edinburgh Edition of 1790, pp. 175-8, ed., Classical Scientific Papers--Chemistry, Second Series, 18 American Chemical Society. Chem.Matters. 2004. p24, Retrieved December 12, 2004 from http://www.chemistry.org 19 American Chemical Society. Chem.Matters, p24, April 2004 Retrieved December 12, 2004 from American Chemical Society. Chem.Matters. 2004. p24, Retrieved December 12, 2004 from http://www.chemistry.org 20 Peryea F, J. 1998. Historical use of lead arsenate insecticides, resulting soil contamination and implications for soil remediation. Proceedings, 16th World Congress of Soil Science (CD Rom), Montpellier, France. 21 Quaintance, A.L., Jenne, E.L. 1912. The Plum Curculio. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology. Bulletin No. 103. Pg.157. Washington 22 Sanders, B., Bellamy, M., Spornick, C. The Travels of William Bartram. Retrieved December 12, 2004 from http://www.bartramtrail.org/pages/biography/bio3.html 23 Dent, Dr. David R., History of Pest Management, Retrieved December 12, 2004 from http://www.ipmrc.com/lib/history.shtml 24 Lintner, J.A. 1883. First Annual Report on the Injurious and Other Insects of the State of New York. pg 25. Weed, Parsons and Co. Albany. 25 Retrieved December 12, 2004 from http://entweb.clemson.edu/pesticid/history.htm and http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/cgi-bin/arr_html?Veratrum+californicum&CAN=COMIND 26 Dent, Dr. David R., History of Pest Management, Retrieved December 12, 2004 from http://www.ipmrc.com/lib/history.shtml 27 Peryea F, J. 1998. Historical use of lead arsenate insecticides, resulting soil contamination and implications for soil remediation. Proceedings, 16th World Congress of Soil Science (CD Rom), Montpellier, France. 28 Schneiderhan, F. J.( Translated by) 1933. Millardet, P., The Discovery of Bordeaux Mixture. Phytopathological Classics, No. 3, pg.8, American Phytopathological Society.
60
29 Fighting Our Insect Enemies: Achievements Of Professional Entomology, 1854-1954. (1954). USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Washington, D.C. 30 Lintner, J.A. 1883. First Annual Report on the Injurious and Other Insects of the State of New York. pg 25. Weed, Parsons and Co. Albany. 31 Lintner, J.A. 1883. First Annual Report on the Injurious and Other Insects of the State of New York. pg 25. Weed, Parsons and Co. Albany. 32 Lintner, J.A. 1883. First Annual Report on the Injurious and Other Insects of the State of New York. pg 25. Weed, Parsons and Co. Albany. 33 Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the year 1875, pp. 144-147 Washington. 34 Chapman, P.J., G.W. Pearce, R.W. Dean, and O.H. Hammer. 1934. Some Comparisons Between Calcium Arsenate and Lead Arsenate as General Insecticides for Apple. Journal of Agricultural Entomolog. Vol. 27(2), pp 421-431. 35 Fighting Our Insect Enemies: Achievements Of Professional Entomology, 1854-1954. (1954) USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Washington, D.C. 36 Peryea F, J. 1998. Historical use of lead arsenate insecticides, resulting soil contamination and implications for soil remediation. Proceedings, 16th World Congress of Soil Science (CD Rom), Montpellier, France. 37 Richardson, C.H. 1923. Studies on Contact Insecticides. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Department Bulletin No. 1160. Pg.1-15. Washington 38 Hodgkiss, H.E., Fulton, B.B. 1913. The Control of Plant Lice on Apple Trees. New York Experiment Station, circular No. 23. Geneva, NY 39 Chapman, P.J., G.W. Pearce, R.W. Dean, and O.H. Hammer. 1934. Some Comparisons Between Calcium Arsenate and Lead Arsenate as General Insecticides for Apple. Journal of Agricultural Entomolog. Vol. 27(2), pp 421-431. 40 Cook, F.C., McIndoo, N.E., Chemical, Physical, and Insecticidal Properties of Arsenicals. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Department Bulletin No. 1147. Pg.157. Washington June 9, 1923 41 Chapman, P.J., G.W. Pearce, R.W. Dean, and O.H. Hammer. 1934. Some Comparisons Between Calcium Arsenate and Lead Arsenate as General Insecticides for Apple. Journal of Agricultural Entomolog. Vol. 27(2), pp 421-431. 42 Peryea F, J. 1998. Historical use of lead arsenate insecticides, resulting soil contamination and implications for soil remediation. Proceedings, 16th World Congress of Soil Science (CD Rom), Montpellier, France. 43 Status Of Pesticides In Registration, Re-registration, And Special Review (Rainbow Report) Spring 1998. Special Review and Re-registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 44 Fighting Our Insect Enemies: Achievements Of Professional Entomology, 1854-1954. (1954) USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Washington, D.C. 45 Bowen, C.V., Hall, S.A. 1952. The Organic insecticides. Yearbook of Agriculture. USDA. Washington. P 209. 46 The History of Malaria, an Ancient Disease. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved January 18, 2004 from http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/history/#ddt 47 About Bayer: A History To Be Proud Of. Retrieved December 12, 2004 from http://www.bayer.com/tw/english/eabout.asp 48 Manufacturer and Builder. 1893. Volume 25, Issue 7, p146. Western and Company, New York 49 Ware, G. Whitacre, D. 1973. The Pesticide Book. 6th edition (2004) p 335. Meister Publication 50 Paxman, J.; Harris, R. 1982. A Higher Form of Killing : The Secret Story of Chemical and Biological Warfare, Hill and Wang, New York: pp. 53-67, 138-139 51 Campbell, F.L., Sullivan, W.N., Smith, L.E. and Haller, H.L. 1934. Insecticidal Tests of Synthetic Organic Compounds-Cheifly Tests of Sulfur Compounds Against Culicine Mosquito Larvae. Journal of Economic Entomology 27: 6, pp. 1176-1185. 52 Guy, H.G. 1937. Investigation of Organic Compounds as Insecticides. Newark University of Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station. bulletin 206, technical19, pp 1-60. 53 Bowen, C.V., Hall, S.A. 1952. The Organic insecticides. Yearbook of Agriculture. USDA. Washington. P 209. 54 Garman, Philip; Townsend, J. F. 1952. Control of Apple Insects. The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 552. pp1-83. 55 Retrieved January 18, 2004 http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc220.htm#_Toc478363911 56 Bowen, C.V., Hall, S.A. 1952. The Organic insecticides. Yearbook of Agriculture. USDA. Washington. P 209. 57 Garman, Philip; Townsend, J. F. 1952. Control of Apple Insects. The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 552. pp1-83.
61
58 Garman, Philip; Townsend, J. F. 1952. Control of Apple Insects. The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 552. pp1-83. 59 DuPont Heritage. Retrieved January 18, 2005 from http://heritage.dupont.com/ 60 Fighting Our Insect Enemies: Achievements Of Professional Entomology, 1854-1954. (1954)USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Washington, D.C. 61 Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the year 1893, 1894. p. 216 Washington. 62 Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the year 1893, 1894. p. 193 Washington. 63 Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the year 1875, 1875. pp. 144-147 Washington. 64 History of Rutgers' Department of Entomology Retrieved January 19, 2005 from http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/fruit.htm 65 Garman, P. 1938. Control of the Rosy Apple Aphid In Connecticut Apple Orchards. Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, CT. Circular 126. 66 Fighting Our Insect Enemies: Achievements Of Professional Entomology, 1854-1954. (1954) USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Washington, D.C. 67 Toth, S. J. Jr., Federal Pesticide Laws and Regulations, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. March 1996 Retrieved January 18, 2005 from www.ipm.ncsu.edu/safety/factsheets/laws.pdf 68 Pease, William S. Identifying Chemical Hazards for Regulation: The Scientific Basis and Regulatory Scope of California's Proposition 65 List of Carcinogens and Reproductive Toxicants. Retrieved January 18, 2005 from http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol3/spring/pease.htm 69 Highlights of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 Retrieved January 18, 2005 from http://www.epa.gov/opppsps1/fqpa/fqpahigh.htm 70 US Code Collection Chapter 9—Federal Food, Drug, And Cosmetic Act, Subchapter Iv—Food. Retrieved January 18, 2005 from http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode21/usc_sup_01_21_10_9.html 71 Jackson, S., Rice, P. Dietary Risk Assessments in the United States and CARES. Exposure and Risk Assessment. BASF Powerpoint Presentation Retrieved January 25, 2005. www.ilsi.org/file/IntrotoCARES_ WaterWizardVMNov122004.pdf 72 Prokopy R., Wright S. Morin G., Spitko R., Koehler G, 1999. 21st Annual March Message To Massachusetts Tree Fruit Growers. Department Of Entomology, University Of Massachusetts. 73 Certified Letter to Chemical Companies with Organophosphate Registrations from EPA. October 30, 2001. p 2.. Retrieved January 18, 2005 from www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/azinphosmethyl_ired.pdf 74 Cumulative and Aggregate Risk Evaluation System (CARES®). . Retrieved January 25, 2005 from http://cares.ilsi.org/about/index.cfm?pubentityid=157 75 Organophosphates, carbamates in jeopardy as FQPA deadline nears. The Great Lakes Fruit Growers News. December, 1997 76 Certified Letter to Chemical Companies with Organophosphate Registrations from EPA. P 1. October 30, 2001. Retrieved January 25, 2005 from www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/azinphosmethyl_ired.pdf 77 E X T O X N E T, Extension Toxicology Network, Pesticide Information Profiles: Acetamiprid Retrieved February 9, 2005 from http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/insect-mite/abamectin-bufencarb/acetamiprid/index.html (acetamiprid Pesticide Tolerance 9/03 (PDF)) 78 Frequently asked questions about IRAC and Insecticide Resistance IRAC Insecticide Resistance Action Committee Retrieved January 25, 2005 from http://www.irac-online.org/faq.asp 79 Fighting Our Insect Enemies: Achievements Of Professional Entomology, 1854-1954. (1954).USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Washington, D.C. 80 Melander, A. L. 1914. "Can Insects Become Resistant to Sprays?" Journal of Economic Entomology 7 167–72 81 Brown, A. W. A. 1961. "The Challenge of Insecticide Resistance," Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America Vol. 7, No. 1 p 7. 82 Brown, A. W. A. 1961. "The Challenge of Insecticide Resistance," Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America Vol. 7, No. 1 p 7. 83 US Army Center For Health Promotion And Preventive Medicine. Entomological Sciences Programs. Pesticide Timeline: DDT. Retrieved January 25, 2005 from http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/ento/timefram/DDT.htm 84 Lyons, C. G. Jr; Byers R. E. 1987. Tree-Row Volume- An Accurate Means of Determining Required Rate Per Acre. Winchester Research Laboratory, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 85 Proceedings of the 72nd Annual Western Orchard Pest & Disease Management Conference 1998, Portland, OR Publ. by Washington State Univ., Pullman, Washington Proc. WOPDMC 72:85.
62
86 Walsh, D. 1999. Insecticide Resistance as an Ecological Phenomenon. Agrichemical & Environmental Education Specialist, WSU Retrieved January 25, 2005 from http://www2.tricity.wsu.edu/aenews/April99AENews/Apr99AENews.htm#anchor464456 87 General Principles of Insecticide Resistance Management Retrieved January 25, 2005 from IRAC http://www.irac-online.org/resources/guide.asp 88 Wood, A. Compendium of Pesticide Common Names: Insecticides. Retrieved February 9, 2005 from http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/class_insecticides.html#nitroguanidine_insecticides 89 Neppl, C. C. 2000. Management of Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins. Thesis. The Environmental Studies Program - The University of Chicago environment.uchicago.edu/studies/thesis/papers/cami.pdf . Retrieved January 25, 2005 from http://camillapede.tripod.com/bapaper.html 90 Brunner, J., Dunley, J., Beers, E., Doerr, M. New Insecticides and Miticides for Apple and Pear IPM Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center Wenatchee, WA Retrieved February 7, 2005 from entomology.tfrec.wsu.edu/jfbhome/ 91 Brunner, J., Dunley, J., Beers, E., Doerr, M. New Insecticides and Miticides for Apple and Pear IPM Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center Wenatchee, WA Retrieved February 7, 2005 from entomology.tfrec.wsu.edu/jfbhome/ growerarticles/New_Insecticides_IPM.pdf 92R.E.D. Facts. Amitraz. 1996. E.P.A.Document 738-F-96-031. Retrieved January 25, 2005 from http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0234fact.pdf. 93 Serafini, M.P. Tebufenozide (Confirm 2F) NYS DEC letter. New Active Ingredient Registration. 2002. Retrieved February 9, 2005 from http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/insect-mite/propetamphos-zetacyperm/tebufenozide/tebufenozide_let_402.html 94 Brunner, J., Dunley, J., Beers, E., Doerr, M. New Insecticides and Miticides for Apple and Pear IPM Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center Wenatchee, WA Retrieved February 7, 2005 from entomology.tfrec.wsu.edu/jfbhome/ growerarticles/New_Insecticides_IPM.pdf 95 Brunner, J., Dunley, J., Beers, E., Doerr, M. New Insecticides and Miticides for Apple and Pear IPM Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center Wenatchee, WA Retrieved February 7, 2005 from entomology.tfrec.wsu.edu/jfbhome/ growerarticles/New_Insecticides_IPM.pdf 96 Cornell Recommends for Tree Fruit Management 2004. Characteristics of Crop Protectants Used on Tree Fruits. Retrieved February 7, 2005 from http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/treefruit/ 97 Tomizawa, M., Casida, J.E. 2003 Selective Toxicity Of Neonicotinoids Attributable To Specificity Of Insect And Mammalian Nicotinic Receptors. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2003. 48:339–64 98 Tomizawa, M., Casida, J.E. 2003 Selective Toxicity Of Neonicotinoids Attributable To Specificity Of Insect And Mammalian Nicotinic Receptors. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2003. 48:339–64 99 Brunner, J., Dunley, J., Beers, E., Doerr, M. New Insecticides and Miticides for Apple and Pear IPM Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center Wenatchee, WA Retrieved February 7, 2005 from entomology.tfrec.wsu.edu/jfbhome/ growerarticles/New_Insecticides_IPM.pdf 100 E X T O X N E T, Extension Toxicology Network, Pesticide Information Profiles: IMIDACLOPRID Retrieved February 25, 2005 from http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/imidaclo.htm 101 Brunner, J., Dunley, J., Beers, E., Doerr, M. New Insecticides and Miticides for Apple and Pear IPM Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center Wenatchee, WA Retrieved February 7, 2005 from entomology.tfrec.wsu.edu/jfbhome/ 102 Straub, R.W., Jentsch, P.J. 2004. Results of 2004 Insecticide and Acaricide trials in Eastern New York. Cornell University’s Hudson Valley Laboratory, Highland, NY. 2004 103 Cerexagri Press Center. 2002. Retrieved February 9, 2005 from http://www.cerexagri.com/presscenter/pressDetail.asp?NewsID=20 104 New Insecticide Undergoes Expedited EPA Review 2004. Retrieved February 9, 2005 from http://www.arvesta.com/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=951 105 Brunner, J., Dunley, J., Beers, E., Doerr, M. New Insecticides and Miticides for Apple and Pear IPM Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center Wenatchee, WA Retrieved February 7, 2005 from entomology.tfrec.wsu.edu/jfbhome/ 106 Brunner, J., Dunley, J., Beers, E., Doerr, M. New Insecticides and Miticides for Apple and Pear IPM Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center Wenatchee, WA Retrieved February 7, 2005 from entomology.tfrec.wsu.edu/jfbhome/ 107 Hogmire, H. Biggs, A. Zimmerman, R. The Orchard Monitor 2005. West Virginia University Extension Service. January 31, 2005 Retrieved February 7, 2005 from http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/orchardmon/om013105.htm
63
108 Brunner, J., Dunley, J., Beers, E., Doerr, M. New Insecticides and Miticides for Apple and Pear IPM Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center Wenatchee, WA Retrieved February 7, 2005 from entomology.tfrec.wsu.edu/jfbhome/ 109 Beers, E.H. 1995. Evidence for Reversion to Susceptibility to Vendex in Twospotted Spider Mite (Tetranychus urticae) Populations from Pear Orchards in Washington Proceedings of the 69th Annual Western Orchard Pest & Disease Management Conference 11-13 January 1995, Washington State Univ., Pullman, Washington Proc. WOPDMC 69:52-54. 1995.